Ethics are theories of the good. The principle good is happiness. Happiness means physical pleasure as well as higher pleasures of the mind, such as satisfaction, wisdom, peace, and a sense of well-being. All things that can have some conscious sensation of physical pain and/or mental anguish are subject to the ethic of happiness and thus deserve moral consideration. Justice is a sense of equality, balance, and fairness. It means each gets exactly what he deserves, no more and no less. When one does work he undergoes some pain in that he expends some of his energy and time. He expends this energy now in the expectation that he will receive some commensurate or even superior good later. When he expends energy doing good toward another, there is a sense of deservedness of an equal good in return. When one does evil toward another, he has decreased the level of happiness for that person and there is a sense of deservedness of an equal evil I return. Out of this sense of equivalent exchange comes a sense of justice. There is no justice for groups, but only for individuals. If we speak of justice for a group, we actually mean justice for a group of individuals. Complete justice would mean that everyone is the same. Because injustice is conceptually displeasing, it causes a measure of unhappiness. Thus while morality supercedes justice, justice does play a factor in morality and often the one contributes to the other. Out of justice emerges a sense of individual rights, which are simply all powers that individuals have that do not infringe on the powers of others unjustly or cause undeserved suffering.
If one individual were made happy while another was left unhappy, the situation would be unjust, yet still more moral than before, since the general level of happiness has increased. If both were made happy to an amount equivalent to the increase in happiness of the previous case (factoring in added unhappiness of the latter individual) with the happiness divided equally among them, then the situation would be equally moral as the previous case and also just.
When we discuss hypothetical ethical dilemmas, we imagine ourselves in the situation of the person in the dilemma. If we judge that it would cause unhappiness or pain to us, we view it as immoral. Instances of morality are the conceptual counterpart to aesthetic beauty, as both cause pleasure on one level or another.
Pride is a positive assessment of oneself (or sometimes of another). The word pride is used in both a negative and positive sense. There are actually three varieties. Just pride is a positive assessment based on earned merit (or desert) and is morally acceptable unless it is taken to the point where others are meant to feel inferior. Justified pride is a positive assessment based on what might be called accidental virtues, that is, positive qualities about a person that he happened to have due to pure good fortune, such as good looks or talents. This sort of pride is morally neutral because it simply describes reality. Of course it becomes immoral when it is used improperly to make others feel inferior. Finally, there is unjust pride, which is positive assessment that is undeserved, is based on false virtues, or has no real merit. This is almost always immoral, as it is a judgment that is not based on true desert, and is thus unjust and leads to unhappiness in others. The concept of such an incorrect judgment is abhorrent.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
The Functions of Film
All art is communication and it requires an audience. Communication is the sharing or provoking of ideas from one individual to another (or even the same individual). Communication is an experience, and therefore all forms of art are experiences. Some experiences of art carry more ‘experiential’ weight than others. For example, hearing music being performed live is typically a more powerful experience than listening to recorded music. Actual proximity to a work of art is more powerful than seeing a photographic reproduction of it. Live actors have more ‘stage presence’ than filmed drama. Therefore cinema, when it is acting as dramatic narrative, typically has less ‘presence’ than theatre. It is the job of the filmmakers to overcome this initial shortcoming and engross the audience. Even so, theatrical works, when presented on stage in the normal fashion (as opposed to some of the possibilities of street theatre, unscripted drama, or breaking of the proscenium barrier), still presence the audience with an experience somewhat removed from that of a ‘true’ experience occurring in real life, as the audience is aware that this is a fictional play. It is however, also the mark of good theatre that the audience forgets this separation from reality and is completely engrossed in the story.
Despite cinema’s not-insurmountable shortcomings in comparison with theatre, film can be used in more ways than simply dramatic narrative. It can also function as a sort of art installation piece wherein the film “crosses the proscenium” by involving the audience in some manner. In Sharon Lockhart’s Teatro Amazonas the audience watches an extended shot of another audience (sitting in an opera house in Brazil) while vocal music plays. The film is as much or more about the live audience’s reaction when confronted with a filmed audience as it is a film of an audience in Brazil. Film need not be restricted to a theatre. Projectors showing films can be part of an art installation (such as some of the work of Andy Warhol) and work in conjunction with the viewing space or other pieces of art to form an entire environment in which the viewer can experience everything around him.
Film can also function as a visual/aural art piece “framed” by the screen. This is in essence like viewing a painting, but with moving and changing images with sound. It may consist of pure colors and shapes and/or coherent pieces of narrative. In the latter case, the screen gives the viewer the implied notion that he is looking through a window and that beyond its edges the there is a greater expanse of space just out of view. It also differs from a static painting or other framed image in that there is no object to look at, only ephemeral projections of flat images on a screen. Therefore the viewer is another level removed from the pure experience of the images he sees. Also unlike a painting the viewer cannot look closer or linger on part of the image as the succession of images is not within his control.
Film can act as a record of actual events. This does not necessarily mean that a documentary film as a whole will function in this manner. Most documentary films have voice-over narration, utilize editing, include animation or diagrams and are structured to explain or argue a point. In this case, its function is more like the sort of narrative that will be discussed later. Raw footage captured at the time of an event is a historical record in a more pure form. Within the ‘frame’ of the screen (with its implied environment just out of the camera’s view) the view sees a moving visual (and sometimes also aural) approximation of the actual event taking place. It is an approximation as it is in reality a series of still images shown in quick succession so that it appears to the human eye as a moving image.
Finally, film can act as a narrative in other ways besides merely dramatic. A narrative can be told through a progression of still or moving images, sounds, words, movements, colors, and scenes. It need not always require actual actors. One image followed by another will be connected by the viewer’s mind to form an idea greater than simply a single image. This narrative may be a complex “storyline” or simply a series of ideas. Such a narrative is more literary than dramatic in that it functions through description, dialogue, metaphor, imagery, as well as action, as in a fictional story, or even a poem. Many an art film is in many respects a visual poem. Written or spoken poems rely on imagery, sounds, rhythm, and even visual shapes (such as with many e.e. cummings works), as do many films. A documentary film also functions as a narrative. This kind of documentary can be likened to reading a newspaper article or editorial (as opposed to a novel), which is based on actual events, but presented in a certain manner by its author.
So far film in particular has been discussed, but of course these ideas can also apply to other analog or digital video as well. In addition, it must be said that the experiences of theatre, film, visual arts, and music carry with them carry with them distracting elements inherent in the medium and in the world around us—other people talking in the theatre, other viewers obstructing our view of a painting. In addition they often require the viewer (or listener) to become adjusted to the medium before they can experience the work at its full potential. In much the same manner as putting glasses on for the first time, the viewer must mentally adjust his perception. With cinema, he soon learns to ignore the blackness around the screen as one learns to ignore the frames of one’s glasses. A theatergoer soon does not even notice the fact that the sets are laid before him in an unrealistic manner (the forth wall is missing). As we are now in the age of internet, digital video, and virtual reality, this discussion of the functions of film may not even be exhaustive, as filmmakers are still exploring the limitations and possibilities of this medium. Many a film theorist have speculated at length about ‘total cinema’, in which we will perceive not just visual images on a screen with accompanying sound, but in which all of our senses are involved and the screen covers our entire field of vision. We may not just be a spectator, but also a participant, altering the storyline with our own decisions. Such technology is largely a reality today, but has not become as widely utilized as traditional cinema. I will concur with those other theorists and critics in that this will be the most complete ‘experience’ possible shy of the real thing. I will add however, that artistic expression can be powerful and effective in any medium, only limited by the effort, skill, and imagination of the artist.
Despite cinema’s not-insurmountable shortcomings in comparison with theatre, film can be used in more ways than simply dramatic narrative. It can also function as a sort of art installation piece wherein the film “crosses the proscenium” by involving the audience in some manner. In Sharon Lockhart’s Teatro Amazonas the audience watches an extended shot of another audience (sitting in an opera house in Brazil) while vocal music plays. The film is as much or more about the live audience’s reaction when confronted with a filmed audience as it is a film of an audience in Brazil. Film need not be restricted to a theatre. Projectors showing films can be part of an art installation (such as some of the work of Andy Warhol) and work in conjunction with the viewing space or other pieces of art to form an entire environment in which the viewer can experience everything around him.
Film can also function as a visual/aural art piece “framed” by the screen. This is in essence like viewing a painting, but with moving and changing images with sound. It may consist of pure colors and shapes and/or coherent pieces of narrative. In the latter case, the screen gives the viewer the implied notion that he is looking through a window and that beyond its edges the there is a greater expanse of space just out of view. It also differs from a static painting or other framed image in that there is no object to look at, only ephemeral projections of flat images on a screen. Therefore the viewer is another level removed from the pure experience of the images he sees. Also unlike a painting the viewer cannot look closer or linger on part of the image as the succession of images is not within his control.
Film can act as a record of actual events. This does not necessarily mean that a documentary film as a whole will function in this manner. Most documentary films have voice-over narration, utilize editing, include animation or diagrams and are structured to explain or argue a point. In this case, its function is more like the sort of narrative that will be discussed later. Raw footage captured at the time of an event is a historical record in a more pure form. Within the ‘frame’ of the screen (with its implied environment just out of the camera’s view) the view sees a moving visual (and sometimes also aural) approximation of the actual event taking place. It is an approximation as it is in reality a series of still images shown in quick succession so that it appears to the human eye as a moving image.
Finally, film can act as a narrative in other ways besides merely dramatic. A narrative can be told through a progression of still or moving images, sounds, words, movements, colors, and scenes. It need not always require actual actors. One image followed by another will be connected by the viewer’s mind to form an idea greater than simply a single image. This narrative may be a complex “storyline” or simply a series of ideas. Such a narrative is more literary than dramatic in that it functions through description, dialogue, metaphor, imagery, as well as action, as in a fictional story, or even a poem. Many an art film is in many respects a visual poem. Written or spoken poems rely on imagery, sounds, rhythm, and even visual shapes (such as with many e.e. cummings works), as do many films. A documentary film also functions as a narrative. This kind of documentary can be likened to reading a newspaper article or editorial (as opposed to a novel), which is based on actual events, but presented in a certain manner by its author.
So far film in particular has been discussed, but of course these ideas can also apply to other analog or digital video as well. In addition, it must be said that the experiences of theatre, film, visual arts, and music carry with them carry with them distracting elements inherent in the medium and in the world around us—other people talking in the theatre, other viewers obstructing our view of a painting. In addition they often require the viewer (or listener) to become adjusted to the medium before they can experience the work at its full potential. In much the same manner as putting glasses on for the first time, the viewer must mentally adjust his perception. With cinema, he soon learns to ignore the blackness around the screen as one learns to ignore the frames of one’s glasses. A theatergoer soon does not even notice the fact that the sets are laid before him in an unrealistic manner (the forth wall is missing). As we are now in the age of internet, digital video, and virtual reality, this discussion of the functions of film may not even be exhaustive, as filmmakers are still exploring the limitations and possibilities of this medium. Many a film theorist have speculated at length about ‘total cinema’, in which we will perceive not just visual images on a screen with accompanying sound, but in which all of our senses are involved and the screen covers our entire field of vision. We may not just be a spectator, but also a participant, altering the storyline with our own decisions. Such technology is largely a reality today, but has not become as widely utilized as traditional cinema. I will concur with those other theorists and critics in that this will be the most complete ‘experience’ possible shy of the real thing. I will add however, that artistic expression can be powerful and effective in any medium, only limited by the effort, skill, and imagination of the artist.
Friday, January 14, 2005
The Activity of Man
Art is man’s alteration of nature; it is creative, inventive and novel. Only by creating literature, art, music, by making new history, new ideas, by doing things never done before, does he change the very universe—he adds something to it that was not there before.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Underlying Principles of Ethics
Deontologists say you should never lie. Consequentialists say its alright to lie if it serves a greater good to the moral community. We still feel uncomfortable about both when faced with the situation. Either action, lying to serve a higher purpose or telling the truth and allow worse things to occur, feels as if it has an element of morality and immorality in it. This is in fact the case because, unless there is some supernatural force determining what is ethical, then there is no one but we ourselves. Ethics can be likened to aesthetics in that both are based on appeal. What is aesthetic appeals to the senses and what is ethical appeals to reason. That is, ethics can be said to be a type of aesthetic judgment, not of perceptions, but of concepts. That is why psychologists tell us that moral development occurs concurrently with cognitive development. I propose that when we are making ethical judgments, we are picturing ourselves in the situation in question. Would we want this to happen to us? Thus giving to charity is ‘good’ because if we were on the receiving end we would be pleased. Likewise murder is ‘bad’ because we would not want to be killed. When we follow a concept to its conclusion we arrive at a feeling, much like music or visual images can evoke a feeling. Rather than a direct base reaction from sense to feeling, we must follow a logical sequence. We can follow this logical chain (and thus sympathize) with not only other cognizant beings, but any entity capable of feeling pain. Ethical actions are conceptually beautiful, not just when people are concerned, but even with animals. At play in our ethical judgments are also learned belief systems, which may act as a sort of superego for the conceptual aesthetic judgment process. Thus despite certain feelings about an idea, we may choose otherwise to conform to a standard. In cases where there are both positive and negative consequences of an action for someone, there seems to be less clear of judgment because we picture ourselves on the receiving end of both consequences.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Birth of Civilization
An impromptu, disorganized, grammatically and structurally incorrect essay on the totally grandiose, self-important, and ambitious topic of the Birth of Civilization.
-Jonathan Mark Miyashiro, January-April 2004
Man is a relatively slow runner, his sense of smell is poor, and he is weaker than many other comparably sized animals. So how does he survive? His only advantage is a clever mind that can come up with ways of altering the environment and making utensils with which to hunt, gather, and do other things. So ape-man is headed in the direction of bigger brains. What does this mean? Well, it means a bigger head in relation to the body. That’s going to cause some problems during childbirth. The only ways to avoid it are wider pelvic bones for women and premature birth. Babies born earlier had smaller heads and allowed for easier childbirth, which means that a lot of development must occur after birth. A woman must now carry around and breast feed babies longer after the birth. Actually, this corollary to earlier birth is applicable to all mammals (hence the breast feeding-the young haven’t matured enough to survive). This leads to “society”. A mother can do better with others around to help her, like maybe a female relative, or maybe the man that got her pregnant. Why would he want to stick around? Well she is carrying his child. And what’s the point of having sex in the first place if no offspring survive. We’re K-strategists1 now, so we depend on well-cared-for offspring (K for carrying capacity of the environment-the environment’s ability to sustain a population is limited). So he will want to make sure the mother and her helpless suckling are alright. And she wants him around too for the same reasons. Thus a family is born.
Why the “male domination” of women? From where did our notions of marriage originate? Well, yes women are tied down with children so they are not able to do all the things men can do and yes they are physically weaker, but also the male reproductive strategy is to impregnate as many females as possible and prevent other males from doing the same. So he will want to keep an eye on her. Add to this that in the midst of evolving into primates we gained the ability to have sex and reproduce all year round (probably to allow for more births and thus a higher chance of survival). So men will want to have sex with as many women as possible, as frequently as possible and must prevent other men from getting at them by claiming them as property and making it clear that other men are not allowed—thus the objectification of women. Women, who are only able to produce one child at a time, look for a more involved, long term relationship (or a few long term relationships). In order to have sex with her, a man might need to provide a long term relationship—thus pair bonding. So there are tendencies toward and against pair bonding within men (and maybe also women). A man unconsciously looks for characteristics in a woman that will ensure the successful creation of a child. Evolution is probably responsible for this. These characteristics include health, breasts (for nursing), and overall youthful appearance with distinctly feminine traits accentuated (such as narrow neck, smooth, curvy figure, etc). Older women are usually seen as less attractive because these characteristics are not as manifest, a sign of menopause and sexual non-viability. Women look for also look for signs of a viable father. These traits include a healthy, appealing body, but since men can produce viable sperm even into old age, other factors, such as stability, wisdom, being well-established financially, etc are also sought after.
In any case, it is not just for sex that people would want to stick together. We can survive better if we all work together. So societies are formed. While all these developments are occurring, we find ourselves in need of communicating more complex ideas more precisely than before. Mammals primarily use gestures and sounds to convey simple concepts such as distress, lust, or pleasure. Humans came up with the idea to put sounds together and give these combinations of sounds specific meanings—words. Then we come up with certain rules of how we will use these—grammar—and we have a language. (Music affects us in a more basic, direct level than speech because it is just pure sound not imbued with artificial meanings, and it therefore is a way of communication much like primitive animal noises. Language must be learned, response to sound is natural. Music is direct, but it is also imprecise and open to different interpretations.) So, we are using tools, living in families within a larger group made up of numerous individuals and families, we are hunting and gathering, speaking a simple language, now what? We need rules.
Rules came about because individuals might do some things that are harmful for the society and therefore would risk survival. Often people within a society would get into fights over mates, food, or whatever. Perhaps someone said, okay you’ve gone too far, let’s make a rule that no one can do that anymore. Perhaps as a group they agreed on this or maybe an individual or smaller group decided this. In any case, some simple rules developed, perhaps into morals passed down from parent to child, perhaps into customs, perhaps into just unwritten laws. So now we’ve got some basic laws in the works. Concurrent with these developments, leadership probably developed as some individual decided to take the lead because he could ensure proper enforcement of laws or because he knew how to survive some plight now affecting the society or just because he was a natural leader. Or maybe he just did it to get more stuff for himself. Or maybe a group of wise men who laid down the laws in the first place decided they would enforce them. Social contract theory, which says that government was created to help the people, that it continues to exist for that same reason, and if it does not fulfill that task it can be overthrown, is probably right. People just let some guy or guys rule out of lack of better ideas or tacit agreement. Of course, soon enough privileges and power are accorded to leaders and some leaders begin to serve themselves rather than the people. Whatever the case, laws and some sort of leadership are now in place. But what kind of leadership? We tend today to assume that men lead the tribes, but there may have existed before, agriculture, a female hierarchy or pairs of male and female hierarchies governing their respective sexes. Baboon societies have a deeply entrenched female hierarchy that is the real seat of power. Groups of males might try to squabble and fight over who’s the dominant one—but meanwhile the females decide who will get to mate with them. Many African societies were matriarchal or had two sets of hierarchies. Perhaps gradual shift in the direction of agriculture gave man his chance to subvert the behind-the-scenes domination by women. Finally here was something useful for him to do. Both men and women probably participated in early agriculture—a sort of controlled form of gathering—but with no children suckling them, a sexual division of labor might have arisen. Gathering, which could be done by women, was in caveman days the tried and true mainstay source of food. Hunting was dangerous, usually required group work, and was not always successful. It might have been a way for men to prove their worth, size each other up, and demonstrate their prowess—an activity to sort out rankings among the males. They probably didn’t always catch some huge beast and feast entirely on meat. Killing one of those huge animals might have been a war story to be told over and over again, like a fishing story today. Someone might even paint a cave painting about it. Anyway, here with agriculture was a chance for him to do something productive. Gradually he built a civilization where he was in charge. He still desperately fears female domination (which may explain “domination” by men and mother issues) and still retains much of his pre-agricultural instincts—thus competitiveness between men. Those are just some thoughts. Anyway, back to agriculture.
In some places around the world—but not all—agriculture developed. It did not occur everywhere because in certain climates and terrains, it is not possible to farm or to domesticate animals. In those areas, it was just more practical to remain nomadic hunter-gatherers or to only use small-scale agriculture. In places where it did develop, gatherers or hunters found that they could get more food if they helped the plants or animals along. Low-food-yielding plants are removed to make way for higher-yielding plants. Maybe this happened by accident, as seed from frequently eaten plants (eaten because they provide a lot of food) in piles of human dung began to grow. Who knows? However it started, they soon learned breeding techniques and domesticated plants and animals. It also required people to stop moving around so much. They needed to stay near the crops. With more food, more people can be sustained. The carrying capacity is artificially increased and children starve less often. Agriculture even requires a large family. Cities, specialized artisans, technology, writing all followed.
Religion. There are a lot of weird, unexplainable things going on. The sun, moon, stars, sudden catastrophes, menstruation, sexual desire, changing seasons, and so on all seem to defy explanation. We need to explain them, because they are out of our control and we want to feel secure that someone is in control. Gods or spirits are good explanations. You can even go further. Perhaps by appeasing the gods of these forces (often by sacrifice), we can have a measure of control over the unpredictable areas of our life. Why fertility goddesses? Well, in the springtime, life-sustaining plants return after a cold, dark, and deathly winter. That’s definitely cause for religious celebration. Also, women have babies. Babies are important because we love them and they will pass on our genes—a sort of immortality. They are also very susceptible to death and need to be safeguarded and treasured. Plus, certain analogies can be drawn between sex, plant cultivation, and spring. So it’s no wonder that many cultures created fertility images. They see no disjunction between human fertility, animal fertility, and the fertility of the ground. So why not have a bunch of rituals and legends about that. Local springs, mountains, forests, and lakes may have gods or spirits within them, since they also play an important role in society. Keep in mind that religion developed right along with societies and laws. All these facets of civilization are interrelated and concurrent. Perhaps what led to some “religions” becoming larger and more important than worship of local deities was that one society conquered another, imposing its gods over the others. (Note: Though people “back then” might have been more “religious” in that they didn’t have science to make them stop believing or stop being superstitious, it didn’t stop ambitious or powerful men from having their way. In general, people were less individualistic in primitive societies, but soon urbanization and cosmopolitanization brought opportunities for individual advancement, even among the religious. Priests can be paid and temples can be built to appease the gods. Also, some families who originally started leading the religious rituals became established fixtures in the community and would want to hold on to those positions because they are now positions of power and respect. Thus certain classes of people or families are often the only ones officiating at the ceremonies.) As for the feminist lament of the “death” of the fertility mother-goddess by the hands of servants of the phallic war-god, female deities often had male counterparts. Perhaps as men began to exert themselves, the needs of society shifted toward attributes of male gods. Or men just didn’t want a woman telling them what to do. I mean think of the mother-issues involved.
Another part of religion is the creation of idols. Gods are hard to conceptualize and worship if they are not physical. People are sentimental. That’s why people hold on to things like heirlooms, they become something more than just a functional object—they are a symbol, perhaps even more—something imbued with certain spiritual properties. Same thing with images of gods, perhaps some innate desire to create something or imitate the world led someone to make a little image of a god. It became part of a worship ritual, and soon it was a god. This opens up a whole nother can of worms. That of art.
Why create something? Perhaps it came from a need to communicate in a way other than speaking. A picture is worth a thousand words and in some instances it may be more effective in getting an idea across (we do perceive mostly through vision). Drawing pictures may supplement words. Images also fulfill a need to communicate over time. The image is permanent, or at least longer lasting. Maybe men have a desire to create (or for that matter get attention, achieve fame, rule an empire, conquer a people) because they envy a woman’s ability to create a child. They must do something productive that will make them well known or else they’re just sperm donors for women. They must express themselves in some way. Many for a woman too, art is like childbirth. I don’t know. Perhaps it comes from sentimentality in a fleeting, changing world. Here is something permanent, more tangible, and perhaps imbued with qualities beyond just an image. Some forms of pictures became systemized into writing, which often became necessary to keep records or send messages or make laws. Pictographs may imitate objects in nature whose characteristics may be used metaphorically to express new ideas and thus evolve into new pictographs. Or some pictographs represent the shape of the mouth when saying certain sounds—thus the beginning of syllabic alphabets. Back to art for a moment. Because we automatically perceive visually and interpret the images, visual art is usually much more powerful than written word. Like music, it is more basic. Writing must be learned, but response to things we see is natural. Art is an imitation of, or expression of, or communication of, or sometimes actually a part of the creation of ideas—ideas such as a beautiful tree, a remembrance, a nude descending a staircase, a feeling, a certain aesthetic appeal, or a call to change (In the last case or in the case of a commissioned portrait, the artist is trying to impose ideas on others or convince others to share a certain view. A political act may be seen as a person trying to impose his values on others—thus it could be seen as art.).
Science. Perhaps curiosity or a desire to effect some good, to alter our environment, to improve life, or to explain and therefore in some way control or cope with the world drives science. The rigorous, empirical science is relatively new, but man wanting to learn about his world is ancient. Astronomy, for instance, may have began as man noticed certain patterns about the way the sky operated. The sun moved the same way, the moon moved the same way, and upon further scrutiny, even the stars moved the same way as time went on. Since the heavens are part of the realm of the gods, perhaps the stars could predict the future. Certainly unusual and frightening things in the sky, such as eclipses and comets must be signs. Perhaps study of the stars could yield some useful information, such as determining auspicious dates for ceremonies. A calendar is soon in the works. Also agriculture demands a calendar. You have the basic seasons that make up a yearly cycle. So a single run through of the cycle might be a unit of time. The cycles of the moon could also be used to reckon time. And of course everyone knows about days, those are units of time. Put them all together and you have calendars. Keep in mind that for the longest time there was no unified measurement of long term time. Each place may have had its own calendar and way of counting years. That’s way ancient accounts give the number of years since some king took the throne, or since some other event happened. People may have had a notion of linear time along with a sense of it being sort of cyclical (the seasons after all), but it would take great kingdoms and empires to unify a way of counting years.
War, crime, greed, arrogance, and bad stuff. Those are by-products of self-interest and pleasure seeking. We all want pleasure; we all want what’s best for ourselves; we all want to minimize pain. Sometimes that may mean hurting others, putting them down, taking their stuff. Maybe racism or tribalism stems from a fear in men that an outsider will take their women and cut off, subvert, or prevent their line of progeny. Women may fear rape. Therefore, exogamy is unwanted, racism is a decoration of that fear. Well, that’s just my theory.
One last thing. Why do all religions just about have some sort of notion of the afterlife? Well no one wants to die. I mean it can’t just be the end when you die. That would totally suck and maybe make a lot of values and beliefs totally meaningless. Also, you try to conceive of your own permanent death—the total absence of your consciousness. You can’t do it because to conceive or image anything requires consciousness. But an afterlife, an everlasting state of consciousness of some sort is easier to take. And while you’re at it, maybe the good are rewarded and the bad get punished, thus bringing justice to an unfair world. Or maybe you are reincarnated? Anything to alleviate the fear of death.
Not all groups of humans formed “civilizations” simply because the environments they lived in did not provide the means for it or lack of “civilization” was in fact the best survival strategy. Others did because they had minerals, crops, domesticatable animals, favorable climates, suitable topography, communication with other peoples, and the need to do so. Therefore, the concluding sentence of this essay will be: Cultures and civilizations formed because of factors evolutionary, biological, statistical, geographical, dietary, astronomical, meteorological, and psychological, along with self-interest, necessity, and chance.
1K-strategists invest a lot of care in their young to ensure survival, whereas r-strategists just produce a lot of young knowing that at least a few will survive.
Bibliography: the book “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, probably some other books, oh yeah, like “The Measure of Reality” and “Godel, Escher, Bach”, and classes on biology, environmental science, art, literature, history, and other subjects taken in high school and in college.
-Jonathan Mark Miyashiro, January-April 2004
Man is a relatively slow runner, his sense of smell is poor, and he is weaker than many other comparably sized animals. So how does he survive? His only advantage is a clever mind that can come up with ways of altering the environment and making utensils with which to hunt, gather, and do other things. So ape-man is headed in the direction of bigger brains. What does this mean? Well, it means a bigger head in relation to the body. That’s going to cause some problems during childbirth. The only ways to avoid it are wider pelvic bones for women and premature birth. Babies born earlier had smaller heads and allowed for easier childbirth, which means that a lot of development must occur after birth. A woman must now carry around and breast feed babies longer after the birth. Actually, this corollary to earlier birth is applicable to all mammals (hence the breast feeding-the young haven’t matured enough to survive). This leads to “society”. A mother can do better with others around to help her, like maybe a female relative, or maybe the man that got her pregnant. Why would he want to stick around? Well she is carrying his child. And what’s the point of having sex in the first place if no offspring survive. We’re K-strategists1 now, so we depend on well-cared-for offspring (K for carrying capacity of the environment-the environment’s ability to sustain a population is limited). So he will want to make sure the mother and her helpless suckling are alright. And she wants him around too for the same reasons. Thus a family is born.
Why the “male domination” of women? From where did our notions of marriage originate? Well, yes women are tied down with children so they are not able to do all the things men can do and yes they are physically weaker, but also the male reproductive strategy is to impregnate as many females as possible and prevent other males from doing the same. So he will want to keep an eye on her. Add to this that in the midst of evolving into primates we gained the ability to have sex and reproduce all year round (probably to allow for more births and thus a higher chance of survival). So men will want to have sex with as many women as possible, as frequently as possible and must prevent other men from getting at them by claiming them as property and making it clear that other men are not allowed—thus the objectification of women. Women, who are only able to produce one child at a time, look for a more involved, long term relationship (or a few long term relationships). In order to have sex with her, a man might need to provide a long term relationship—thus pair bonding. So there are tendencies toward and against pair bonding within men (and maybe also women). A man unconsciously looks for characteristics in a woman that will ensure the successful creation of a child. Evolution is probably responsible for this. These characteristics include health, breasts (for nursing), and overall youthful appearance with distinctly feminine traits accentuated (such as narrow neck, smooth, curvy figure, etc). Older women are usually seen as less attractive because these characteristics are not as manifest, a sign of menopause and sexual non-viability. Women look for also look for signs of a viable father. These traits include a healthy, appealing body, but since men can produce viable sperm even into old age, other factors, such as stability, wisdom, being well-established financially, etc are also sought after.
In any case, it is not just for sex that people would want to stick together. We can survive better if we all work together. So societies are formed. While all these developments are occurring, we find ourselves in need of communicating more complex ideas more precisely than before. Mammals primarily use gestures and sounds to convey simple concepts such as distress, lust, or pleasure. Humans came up with the idea to put sounds together and give these combinations of sounds specific meanings—words. Then we come up with certain rules of how we will use these—grammar—and we have a language. (Music affects us in a more basic, direct level than speech because it is just pure sound not imbued with artificial meanings, and it therefore is a way of communication much like primitive animal noises. Language must be learned, response to sound is natural. Music is direct, but it is also imprecise and open to different interpretations.) So, we are using tools, living in families within a larger group made up of numerous individuals and families, we are hunting and gathering, speaking a simple language, now what? We need rules.
Rules came about because individuals might do some things that are harmful for the society and therefore would risk survival. Often people within a society would get into fights over mates, food, or whatever. Perhaps someone said, okay you’ve gone too far, let’s make a rule that no one can do that anymore. Perhaps as a group they agreed on this or maybe an individual or smaller group decided this. In any case, some simple rules developed, perhaps into morals passed down from parent to child, perhaps into customs, perhaps into just unwritten laws. So now we’ve got some basic laws in the works. Concurrent with these developments, leadership probably developed as some individual decided to take the lead because he could ensure proper enforcement of laws or because he knew how to survive some plight now affecting the society or just because he was a natural leader. Or maybe he just did it to get more stuff for himself. Or maybe a group of wise men who laid down the laws in the first place decided they would enforce them. Social contract theory, which says that government was created to help the people, that it continues to exist for that same reason, and if it does not fulfill that task it can be overthrown, is probably right. People just let some guy or guys rule out of lack of better ideas or tacit agreement. Of course, soon enough privileges and power are accorded to leaders and some leaders begin to serve themselves rather than the people. Whatever the case, laws and some sort of leadership are now in place. But what kind of leadership? We tend today to assume that men lead the tribes, but there may have existed before, agriculture, a female hierarchy or pairs of male and female hierarchies governing their respective sexes. Baboon societies have a deeply entrenched female hierarchy that is the real seat of power. Groups of males might try to squabble and fight over who’s the dominant one—but meanwhile the females decide who will get to mate with them. Many African societies were matriarchal or had two sets of hierarchies. Perhaps gradual shift in the direction of agriculture gave man his chance to subvert the behind-the-scenes domination by women. Finally here was something useful for him to do. Both men and women probably participated in early agriculture—a sort of controlled form of gathering—but with no children suckling them, a sexual division of labor might have arisen. Gathering, which could be done by women, was in caveman days the tried and true mainstay source of food. Hunting was dangerous, usually required group work, and was not always successful. It might have been a way for men to prove their worth, size each other up, and demonstrate their prowess—an activity to sort out rankings among the males. They probably didn’t always catch some huge beast and feast entirely on meat. Killing one of those huge animals might have been a war story to be told over and over again, like a fishing story today. Someone might even paint a cave painting about it. Anyway, here with agriculture was a chance for him to do something productive. Gradually he built a civilization where he was in charge. He still desperately fears female domination (which may explain “domination” by men and mother issues) and still retains much of his pre-agricultural instincts—thus competitiveness between men. Those are just some thoughts. Anyway, back to agriculture.
In some places around the world—but not all—agriculture developed. It did not occur everywhere because in certain climates and terrains, it is not possible to farm or to domesticate animals. In those areas, it was just more practical to remain nomadic hunter-gatherers or to only use small-scale agriculture. In places where it did develop, gatherers or hunters found that they could get more food if they helped the plants or animals along. Low-food-yielding plants are removed to make way for higher-yielding plants. Maybe this happened by accident, as seed from frequently eaten plants (eaten because they provide a lot of food) in piles of human dung began to grow. Who knows? However it started, they soon learned breeding techniques and domesticated plants and animals. It also required people to stop moving around so much. They needed to stay near the crops. With more food, more people can be sustained. The carrying capacity is artificially increased and children starve less often. Agriculture even requires a large family. Cities, specialized artisans, technology, writing all followed.
Religion. There are a lot of weird, unexplainable things going on. The sun, moon, stars, sudden catastrophes, menstruation, sexual desire, changing seasons, and so on all seem to defy explanation. We need to explain them, because they are out of our control and we want to feel secure that someone is in control. Gods or spirits are good explanations. You can even go further. Perhaps by appeasing the gods of these forces (often by sacrifice), we can have a measure of control over the unpredictable areas of our life. Why fertility goddesses? Well, in the springtime, life-sustaining plants return after a cold, dark, and deathly winter. That’s definitely cause for religious celebration. Also, women have babies. Babies are important because we love them and they will pass on our genes—a sort of immortality. They are also very susceptible to death and need to be safeguarded and treasured. Plus, certain analogies can be drawn between sex, plant cultivation, and spring. So it’s no wonder that many cultures created fertility images. They see no disjunction between human fertility, animal fertility, and the fertility of the ground. So why not have a bunch of rituals and legends about that. Local springs, mountains, forests, and lakes may have gods or spirits within them, since they also play an important role in society. Keep in mind that religion developed right along with societies and laws. All these facets of civilization are interrelated and concurrent. Perhaps what led to some “religions” becoming larger and more important than worship of local deities was that one society conquered another, imposing its gods over the others. (Note: Though people “back then” might have been more “religious” in that they didn’t have science to make them stop believing or stop being superstitious, it didn’t stop ambitious or powerful men from having their way. In general, people were less individualistic in primitive societies, but soon urbanization and cosmopolitanization brought opportunities for individual advancement, even among the religious. Priests can be paid and temples can be built to appease the gods. Also, some families who originally started leading the religious rituals became established fixtures in the community and would want to hold on to those positions because they are now positions of power and respect. Thus certain classes of people or families are often the only ones officiating at the ceremonies.) As for the feminist lament of the “death” of the fertility mother-goddess by the hands of servants of the phallic war-god, female deities often had male counterparts. Perhaps as men began to exert themselves, the needs of society shifted toward attributes of male gods. Or men just didn’t want a woman telling them what to do. I mean think of the mother-issues involved.
Another part of religion is the creation of idols. Gods are hard to conceptualize and worship if they are not physical. People are sentimental. That’s why people hold on to things like heirlooms, they become something more than just a functional object—they are a symbol, perhaps even more—something imbued with certain spiritual properties. Same thing with images of gods, perhaps some innate desire to create something or imitate the world led someone to make a little image of a god. It became part of a worship ritual, and soon it was a god. This opens up a whole nother can of worms. That of art.
Why create something? Perhaps it came from a need to communicate in a way other than speaking. A picture is worth a thousand words and in some instances it may be more effective in getting an idea across (we do perceive mostly through vision). Drawing pictures may supplement words. Images also fulfill a need to communicate over time. The image is permanent, or at least longer lasting. Maybe men have a desire to create (or for that matter get attention, achieve fame, rule an empire, conquer a people) because they envy a woman’s ability to create a child. They must do something productive that will make them well known or else they’re just sperm donors for women. They must express themselves in some way. Many for a woman too, art is like childbirth. I don’t know. Perhaps it comes from sentimentality in a fleeting, changing world. Here is something permanent, more tangible, and perhaps imbued with qualities beyond just an image. Some forms of pictures became systemized into writing, which often became necessary to keep records or send messages or make laws. Pictographs may imitate objects in nature whose characteristics may be used metaphorically to express new ideas and thus evolve into new pictographs. Or some pictographs represent the shape of the mouth when saying certain sounds—thus the beginning of syllabic alphabets. Back to art for a moment. Because we automatically perceive visually and interpret the images, visual art is usually much more powerful than written word. Like music, it is more basic. Writing must be learned, but response to things we see is natural. Art is an imitation of, or expression of, or communication of, or sometimes actually a part of the creation of ideas—ideas such as a beautiful tree, a remembrance, a nude descending a staircase, a feeling, a certain aesthetic appeal, or a call to change (In the last case or in the case of a commissioned portrait, the artist is trying to impose ideas on others or convince others to share a certain view. A political act may be seen as a person trying to impose his values on others—thus it could be seen as art.).
Science. Perhaps curiosity or a desire to effect some good, to alter our environment, to improve life, or to explain and therefore in some way control or cope with the world drives science. The rigorous, empirical science is relatively new, but man wanting to learn about his world is ancient. Astronomy, for instance, may have began as man noticed certain patterns about the way the sky operated. The sun moved the same way, the moon moved the same way, and upon further scrutiny, even the stars moved the same way as time went on. Since the heavens are part of the realm of the gods, perhaps the stars could predict the future. Certainly unusual and frightening things in the sky, such as eclipses and comets must be signs. Perhaps study of the stars could yield some useful information, such as determining auspicious dates for ceremonies. A calendar is soon in the works. Also agriculture demands a calendar. You have the basic seasons that make up a yearly cycle. So a single run through of the cycle might be a unit of time. The cycles of the moon could also be used to reckon time. And of course everyone knows about days, those are units of time. Put them all together and you have calendars. Keep in mind that for the longest time there was no unified measurement of long term time. Each place may have had its own calendar and way of counting years. That’s way ancient accounts give the number of years since some king took the throne, or since some other event happened. People may have had a notion of linear time along with a sense of it being sort of cyclical (the seasons after all), but it would take great kingdoms and empires to unify a way of counting years.
War, crime, greed, arrogance, and bad stuff. Those are by-products of self-interest and pleasure seeking. We all want pleasure; we all want what’s best for ourselves; we all want to minimize pain. Sometimes that may mean hurting others, putting them down, taking their stuff. Maybe racism or tribalism stems from a fear in men that an outsider will take their women and cut off, subvert, or prevent their line of progeny. Women may fear rape. Therefore, exogamy is unwanted, racism is a decoration of that fear. Well, that’s just my theory.
One last thing. Why do all religions just about have some sort of notion of the afterlife? Well no one wants to die. I mean it can’t just be the end when you die. That would totally suck and maybe make a lot of values and beliefs totally meaningless. Also, you try to conceive of your own permanent death—the total absence of your consciousness. You can’t do it because to conceive or image anything requires consciousness. But an afterlife, an everlasting state of consciousness of some sort is easier to take. And while you’re at it, maybe the good are rewarded and the bad get punished, thus bringing justice to an unfair world. Or maybe you are reincarnated? Anything to alleviate the fear of death.
Not all groups of humans formed “civilizations” simply because the environments they lived in did not provide the means for it or lack of “civilization” was in fact the best survival strategy. Others did because they had minerals, crops, domesticatable animals, favorable climates, suitable topography, communication with other peoples, and the need to do so. Therefore, the concluding sentence of this essay will be: Cultures and civilizations formed because of factors evolutionary, biological, statistical, geographical, dietary, astronomical, meteorological, and psychological, along with self-interest, necessity, and chance.
1K-strategists invest a lot of care in their young to ensure survival, whereas r-strategists just produce a lot of young knowing that at least a few will survive.
Bibliography: the book “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, probably some other books, oh yeah, like “The Measure of Reality” and “Godel, Escher, Bach”, and classes on biology, environmental science, art, literature, history, and other subjects taken in high school and in college.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)