[LBird]

More:

regarding Chomskys theory, the article wrote:

Speech is the natural, autonomous output of a dedicated computational mechanism – the ‘language organ’ – located in a special region of the individual human brain.

'Individuals' and 'biology'.When will those suffering from 'ruling class ideas', realise that looking at individuals is not an answer to social questions.Not even if they have 'pointy sticks'.

[LBird]

From alan's link:

Quote:

Chomsky promised simplification by reducing language to a mechanical ‘device’ whose design could be precisely specified. Linguistics was no longer to be tarnished by association with ‘unscientific’ disciplines such as anthropology or sociology. Avoiding the obscurities of sociocultural or psychosocial studies, linguistics would be redefined as the study of a ‘natural object’ – the specialised module of the brain which (according to Chomsky) was responsible for speech. Excluding social factors and thereby transcending mere politics and ideology, the reconstructed discipline would at last qualify as a natural science akin to mathematics and physics.

We've been here before, comrades.The 'physicalists' and 'materialists' who regard science, maths and physics as 'transcending mere politics and ideology'.Knowledge of a rock is ideological, comrades, and that's why the US military can't get rid of humans, and replace them with computers, which is precisely what Chomsky's line of research suggests is possible.If they can find the physical location of a piece of knowledge, we've had it.But they can't, because knowledge is reliant on language and meaning, and these are social and historical constructs, not 'material objects'.

[LBird]

https://fringefocus.com/2010/analog-is-not-the-opposite-of-digital/

Quote:

…digital simply means concrete values. Any system that utilizes solid values (or digits) is digital…

'Meaning' is not 'concrete'. 'Thinking' is not 'solid'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't understand either what military significance either theory has.

I think Hud's earlier comment was relevent:

Hud955 wrote:

The Pentagon funds him to do research into the supposed underlying universal grammar of language (a kind of human linguistic machine code) because of its potential use in developing computer systems to control American weapons programmes.

I think what Hud is getting at, is that if a 'human linguistic machine code' can be found (ie. a physical basis, language as a 'cell' or something), then it can be programmed. This would suggest that a missile could be taught to 'think', and make complex decisions in response to environmental changes, much like a human controller could (ie. abort, change target, return to base, etc.), but obviously without the human element (ie. someone brought up in a society who has the potential to 'stop the war', and has to be paid, fed, etc.).Whereas, if language is relational and social (and constantly changes in meaning), this is much more difficult (impossible?) to program.I  think this is what Hud is getting at, but I'd like Hud to clarify, in case I'm getting hold of the wrong end of the stick about what he means.PS. computers are good at 'quantity', but very poor at 'quality'; this is related to on/off, binary, all-or-nothing, 0s and 1s, being and consciousness. They are not 'analogue', but 'digital', and don't like thinking about meaning, shades of grey, etc.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The part I bolded is suggestive to me, if a coalition can come about to kill a wannabe leader, then it's only a small step to a leader using a coalition to kill rivals and become an achievement based leader…

But this is an issue of 'social power', not 'individual violence'.If we define 'violence' to be about 'individuals using pointy sticks against each other', that definition about 'individuals' is completely irrelevent regarding 'social power'.That is, 'killing' is not a 'biological act', but a 'social act'.In our social terms, 'murder' is irrelevant to understanding 'war'.I'd suggest that those who look to defining 'violence' in individual, biological, physical terms are employing a different ideology to those who wish to define 'violence' in social, structurally-emergent, power terms.We should attempt to clarify what is meant by 'violence' when the term is employed on this thread.If my socialist definition is employed, a society can exhibit individuals sticking point sticks into each other for personal reasons, and still be defined as 'non-violent', because there are no structures present in that society that can produce war.This is a definition of 'violence' as a structurally-produced phenomenon, which is unrelated to 'pointy sticks' and their usage to settle personal debates between individuals.

[LBird]

Thanks, Hud, for your very interesting and enlightening post.Your explanation of the problems with Chomsky's ideas is a model for socialists to follow, when trying to explain difficult 'science' issues to 'non-scientists'.Of course, one of things that attract me is that the post is laced with concerns about ideology (theories, definitions, purposes behind research, political and economic power), but that's my particular thirst being sated. I'm sure others will gain from reading your post, whether they share my interests or not.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

Hi LB.  You have made your logical point.  In its own abstract way it is a valid one, so thank you for that.  The discussion, though, is not about abstract logic; it's about violence among hunter gatherers, and the reiteration of your single point in post after post in ways which do not advance this discussion is not, therefore very helpful.

Yes, it is valid and logical, but not abstract at all.In fact, in your more lucid moments, as with robbo too, you both completely accept the so-called ‘abstract’ point that I’m making, that ideology is a fundamental concern for science and especially anthropology. The problem is, you both, in an invalid and illogical way, refuse to take your insight and understanding further, and help clarify for us all what the ideologies are, of Kelly and Fry, and of us, who are reading this thread.The simple point, as ever, is that one’s framework determines what one ‘sees’, through the mechanism of providing definitions of ‘what there is to be seen’. This applies to social structures (‘bands’, ‘tribes’, ‘chiefdoms’, ‘classes’ do not define themselves, they are not just waiting ‘out there’ to ‘be seen’ by the ‘observant’ anthropologist who supposedly ‘keeps ideology out of it’) and their social activities (the key for us on this thread, ‘violence’, still hasn’t been defined by us, never mind the anthropologists).

Hud955 wrote:

You have pretty much lost my interest.  (I'd add that you won't regain it by your rapidly increasing habit of flinging patronising insults at anyone who disagrees with you.)

You are simply following the same method as the others of your ideological persuasion, here. This has happened many times before, on this site. You start the ‘insults’ because you don’t like my entirely valid questioning of your ignorance of the role of ideology in science, and then pretend to be outraged when I answer you in the same tone, and you attempt to revert to a ‘hurt academic objectivity’. Have a look at the list I gave in my last reply of what you said to me, and then look at your last post: ‘leeching’, ‘flinging’. How come you aren’t ‘leeching’ and ‘flinging’ when you use the thread to insult me?Well, let’s leave that behind us, and if you and robbo wish to leave unexamined the lacuna in your own understanding about your own ideology, so be it. I’m prepared to discuss, if you keep your comments to an acceptable academic standard, and refrain from personal attacks on me.

Hud955 wrote:

Let me start the ball rolling then with a question.  How would you pursue the issue of understanding violence among hunter gatherers and in particular how would you develop a set of parameters we could use to discuss this in ways that are relevant to socialists?

[my bold]For socialists to come to some understanding of violence in hunter gatherer societies, they first have to come to a series of socialist definitions of the terms that we’ve already discussed. If socialists use conservative or liberal definitions, they will not develop a socialist understanding of anthropology, but will instead develop a ruling class understanding.Of course, as a Communist and a Marxist, I don’t subscribe to the 19th century ruling class idea that ‘if we keep ideology out of science, then the Truth will be found’. I agree with Einstein, that the position of observation determines what one sees in the universe. So, in line with my ideological science (Marx and Einstein), I don’t think that there is an ‘anthropological’ view to which ‘academics’ have access. There is only ‘socialist anthropology’, ‘conservative anthropology’, ‘liberal anthropology’, etc. I’ve tried to show this by my quotes from robbo’s links, to Fry and Kelly, to try to make clear that Fry and Kelly are not simple ‘anthropologists’, but are politically influenced. Hence, my insistence on socialist definitions, to ‘help get the ball rolling’.Perhaps it might be useful to make totally apparent our ideological concerns regarding the title of the thread, and tie together both social structures and behaviour (once they’ve been clarified further), and posit structures to replace ‘band’ and ‘tribe’?We could, as a tentative suggestion, define our basic structures as:‘peace-band’ and ‘war-band’ (or, alternatively, ‘non-violent-band’ and ‘violent-band’).Once we have defined these as our socialist view of structures, they we could search for the ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ of the ‘real existence’ of our structures. I’m sure that you, robbo and YMS could come up with some names of various groups which have been studied, and which fit into these socialist categories.Of course, we could be accused of defining into (or out of) existence the very things that we wish to find, and I think someone has already provided an academic quote that says this already, earlier in the thread. But this ‘defining’ is exactly what every anthropologist does, either consciously (the better ones, who understand the role of ideology) or unconsciously (the worse ones, who simply use ruling class ideas that they’ve grown up with).These socialist definitions, if accepted, have the merit of exposing completely our underlying ideological concern with the relationship between human social organisation and the social nature of violence: ‘peace-band’ and ‘war band’. It will also serve to make clear that, as socialists, we don’t believe that ‘violence is a part of human nature’, and do believe that ‘violence is a structural attribute’ of human society, which may or may not be present, due to social and historical differences between 'peace-bands' and 'war-bands'.But……if any comrades here do think that ‘humans are naturally violent’ or that ‘violence is an individual trait, not a social trait’, then let them openly declare their ideology, because neither of those beliefs is compatible with socialism.Well, what do you think, Hud? Definitions required of violence, social structures and socialism? And an openness of the ideology that is behind those definitions?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry  but I am coming around to thinking that the moderation on the "hunter violence" thread is getting beyond reasonable and verging on the absurd. Its stifling rather than encouraging debate

I'd like to add my support to what robbo has said about the strictness of the moderation.On the 'hunter gatherer violence' thread, although robbo and I are having a dispute about methodology, I think that it's still within the bounds of the thread, especially since we've been using links and quotes from those links from academic anthropologists, as the background to our dispute. This is, I think, entirely on-topic.Even the tone of our debate hasn't really been too rude – not by my brutal standards, anyway!

[LBird]

Well, I've tried to explain to you about scientific method, but clearly you're going to stick with your outdated 19th century method of 'non-ideological collection of raw material'.Your loss, comrade.You'll come to consciousness, one day. I'd rather help you for that to be sooner rather than later, but you won't listen. Keep reading, and eventually I'm sure that you'll come to understand. At least you're engaging, if not very successfully.'Established facts' establish themselves, do they? Think about it, robbo.PS. Your whole post is simply one long confusion. If 'facts' are selected, then we have the right to ask 'how'. You don't do this, for all your methodological awareness. You don't apply that awareness to your work.Second warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

You dont have a monopoly in recognising that our view of the world is always idelogically tainted although you seem to imagine you have.

Apparently, I do have a monopoly.If everyone's 'view of the world is always ideologically tainted', why won't you tell us your ideology?I openly state mine.What you're doing, robbo, as I've pointed out before, that almost all academics do, is genuflect to 'ideology' in the preface of a book, or in you case, in a line of your posts, and then proceed to IGNORE in practice this reality, of which they, and you, claim that they are aware of.Why doesn't Kelly, Fry, Hud, YMS and you, do what I do: that is, follow the scientific method and expose my 'position of observation'?

robbo203 wrote:

In order to engage in critical questioning you have to have something – some raw material – that you can critically question in the first place, yes?

See what I mean?You want 'facts' first, and then 'critical questioning'.What's happened to your earlier declaration about 'ideologically tainted'? It's as if you don't know what you are writing.There is no 'raw material'  – that's the conclusion of science and physics.'Material' is always selected, according to the scientist's ideology, and this applies to physics, too. I've given the Rovelli quote often enough for you at least to be able to remember it.You're hanging on to 'outdated imperialist dogma', robbo, to quote a rabble-rouser!It's positivism to argue for the collection of 'raw data', supposedly outside of any influence.Why you, and the rest of academia, continue to say 'ideology is important' but then ignore it it practice, completely baffles me.Or it did, until I started to recognise that academia is bourgeois academia, and has a vested interest in keeping the 'non-experts' in their place, as Hud prefers, and that we defer to 'experts' who 'know the details'. It's an ideological basis for bourgeois authority and legitimacy. They pretend to understand Einstein,but hide their real intent, which is to shore-up capitalism and its ideological struts, like 'objective science' and 'raw material'.Think it through, robbo; I'm a Democratic Communist, and I have.First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I might be completely missing something, of course, as I havent read the whole book but have only perused parts of it here:https://books.google.es/books?id=LSm6MLV42zgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=tribes…

A quote from robbo’s link:

Douglas Fry, Beyond War, p. 6, wrote:

But it is an often ignored fact that scientists and scholars, as human beings, are members of a culture too. Like everyone else, they are exposed to cultural traditions and worldviews that influence their thinking and perceptions. When the learned and shared beliefs of a culture hold that humans are innately pugnacious, inevitably violent, instinctively warlike, and so on, the people socialised in such settings, whether scientists or non-scientists, tend to accept such views without much question.

It therefore seems reasonable to me to ask critical questions about any scientist’s culture, worldview and beliefs, which they often hold ‘without much question’.A simple term to embrace all these types of ‘learned and shared’ social properties would be ‘ideology’.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry LBird but I think Hud was spot on.

Yeah, you would, because you share his ideology.Try looking at the book that you recommended, and from which I provided an extract, and asked a germane question.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

My question is – if complex HG societies are "chiefdoms" can we usefully talk of chiefdoms that are non tribal in their social structure?  If not then it would seem that Fry is adopting the same taxonomy employed by the likes of Kelly. no?

It's my understand, robbo, that on a five stage scale, that 'chiefdoms' are stage 3, and so are very different from 'bands'.Perhaps this taxonomy below might be useful for your understanding?1. egalitarian band society;2. 'Big man'. Chiefdoms;4. Class;5. State.Clearly, Marx's model of 'modes of production' would give some more detail, especially on stages 4 and 5.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

Your desire to manufacture controversy wherever you can is getting tedious.

Oh dear. Another 'non-ideological' positivist who thinks that anthropology is non-controversial, and so it has to be 'manufactured'. I'm not manufacturing it, Hud, it's an essential feature of all science, and especially topics as controversial as the question about 'violence in hunter gatherer societies'.

Hud955 wrote:

Of course everyone will have a political view in some sense of the word and interpret the world through it.

Ahhh… the usual caveat to show that the academic has done the requisite course on method, and is usually put in the preface to a book, but which is then completely ignored in the work itself.You, like the others, seem to think that saying 'facts are theory-laden' is enough to innoculate you against ideology. And then you continue to 'do science' in the old, 'non-ideological' way.

Hud955 wrote:

But I'm sure you know as well as I do that academic papers are peer reviewed and examined within paramaters designed to reduce error, confusion and individual bias in a way that popular works aren't.

You have more faith in 'academic papers' than I have, Hud. In reality, 'academic papers' are as ideological as 'popular works', but the ideology is hidden in 'special language', to baffle the punters. As socialists, we should be seeking to reveal the ideological basis of academia, not pandering to bourgeois prejudices.

Hud955 wrote:

And being non-specialists ourselves without first hand work to call on or an extensive knowledge of the field a certain degree of critical trust is necessary.

I don't know about you Hud, but I've met professors who haven't got a clue about their own ideology, and I've had to point it out to them. I wasn't thanked by them, though, which is strange, because academics claim to have an open mind, and be prepared to listen to those who know better. But they don't, they are just like the person-in-the-street, and take a strop. How dare a 'non-specialist' tell them 'what's what'!You stick to 'trust', I'll stick to questioning.

Hud955 wrote:

If you devoted yourself to applying this ideological obsession of yours to the details of arguments under consideration, showing whether and to what extent such biases influenced them, and whether as a result we should assess such influence as significant or trivial, then I would have a lot more respect for your views.  As it is, your entirely negative, carping and absolutist approach is utterly sterile and clearly of interest only to yourself.  As you have contributed next to nothing of positive value to this discussion, so far, I'm starting to regard you as a species of troll.

Oh dear, the usual response by an academic who wishes to stick to 'the details' and ignore the perspective.I've actually followed up a link given by robbo, and found that Kelly openly says  he employs concepts drawn from neo-classical economics. But you're not interested in 'critical questioning' of Kelly's ideological framework within which he selects his 'details', but prefer to 'critically trust' his academic credentials.'Obsession', 'negative and carping', 'utterly sterile', 'nothing of positive value', and finally 'troll'.It's pathetic, Hud, and I can smell the fear…The fear of conservative ideology when confronted with the question: 'What perspective/framework/ideology do you employ, to select your details?'.You wish to ignore both the anthropologists' ideologies, and your own, in the 'belief' that just sticking to details will give us an answer.On a thread entitled 'Hunter gatherer violence', you won't discuss what is meant by either 'hunter gatherers' or 'violence', and which perspectives are behind the various possible answers.And I'm the 'troll'?…I'm the only one who seems to have any scientific approach to these issues – 21st century science, of course. Not the outdated 19th century postivism that you embrace, Hud, with its concern with 'details', the notorious 'facts of the matter'.Simple  question, Hud. What ideology do you use to understand anthropology, and 'hunter gatherer society'? Or are you just going to continue to try to 'impress' us with your learning, with the 'details' of endless bands, tribes, cultures, customs, academics' names, none of which have any meaning for socialists, outside of a framework of understanding.Frankly, I don't know why I bother anymore – your response is almost word-for-word the same as from others, and on other threads.It's based upon an ignorance and avoidance of science, and a fear of critical questioning. Back to your unvarnished 'details', eh, Hud?

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

Most on-line stuff about hunter gatherers is very dodgy.  It's highly politicised and therefore a contested area, so you need to go back to academic texts for security.

You seem to be suggesting that there are 'non-political' academics out there, merely conducting a non-ideological 'search for The Truth' of hunter gatherers.Anyone thinking that 'academic texts' offer any non-political 'security' is fooling themselves.And to suggest so, is completely ideological, Hud. If you're not suggesting this, and I've misread your intentions, surely the way forward is to expose ideology, both in us reading and in academics writing?To echo your view about 'hunter gatherers', anthropology itself is 'highly politicised and contested'.Academics are not providing us with the view from nowhere, the pre-Einsteinian 'objective truth'. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.

[Author]

Posts