The Amish & Muslims
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Jbird
Mar 14, 2012, 6:46:29 PM3/14/12
to Memetics
So, I'm reading "thought contagion" by aaron lynch and he brings up
some interesting ideas.
~The Amish have a taboo against modern farm machines. The Amish
continue this belief because they are separate from surrounding
communities (the U.S.) and so they can pass down this belief to the
next generation (about 78% stay as Amish) without interference. The
next generation will be quite large because they are baby making
machines. In 1900, there were like, 5 or something. In 1920, they
were not quite 10,000. In 1940, they were about 25,000. In 1960,
they were about 45,000. In 1980, they were almost 100,000. In 2000,
they were over 140,000.
~Wealth is not a good example of measuring the spread of an idea.
Iran could have been fairly advanced as a country with its' economic
growth/oil exports, but though Islamic fundamentalism devotes effort
to spread and strengthen its' faith, it also isolates from Western
technological development, investment, and trade. So religious
isolationism set back its' development.
Isn't that amazing? If you haven't seen the movie "The Village", it's
supposed to be a thriller but I took it as a group of people who chose
to be isolated and kinda/sorta the impact it had on them and their
offspring. It was strange how they manipulated their children into
fearing the outside world.
Thoughts?
some interesting ideas.
~The Amish have a taboo against modern farm machines. The Amish
continue this belief because they are separate from surrounding
communities (the U.S.) and so they can pass down this belief to the
next generation (about 78% stay as Amish) without interference. The
next generation will be quite large because they are baby making
machines. In 1900, there were like, 5 or something. In 1920, they
were not quite 10,000. In 1940, they were about 25,000. In 1960,
they were about 45,000. In 1980, they were almost 100,000. In 2000,
they were over 140,000.
~Wealth is not a good example of measuring the spread of an idea.
Iran could have been fairly advanced as a country with its' economic
growth/oil exports, but though Islamic fundamentalism devotes effort
to spread and strengthen its' faith, it also isolates from Western
technological development, investment, and trade. So religious
isolationism set back its' development.
Isn't that amazing? If you haven't seen the movie "The Village", it's
supposed to be a thriller but I took it as a group of people who chose
to be isolated and kinda/sorta the impact it had on them and their
offspring. It was strange how they manipulated their children into
fearing the outside world.
Thoughts?
wayne
Mar 14, 2012, 11:13:09 PM3/14/12
to Memetics
I see parallels in US society in which various elements of the
doctrine system set us up from a young age to believe in such
ridiculous nonsense as "American exceptionalism", a statement which
contains more than one level of absurdity when you realize that most
people around the world internally equate the idea of "American" as
anything having to do with folks from the US, which is actually only
one country of several dozen which occupy territory within the
Americas. While this is not directly giving us cause to fear those
outside our borders, the ridiculous notion of nationalist boundaries
itself is, however, amplified. In other words, the "us vs them"
becomes more pronounced as does the idea that people over there
(outside our borders) are somehow fundamentally different than people
here (inside our borders). These notions then lead to the fear of the
outsider, people who want our land or our jobs or people who want to
subvert our cultural ideals.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't think there are many
societies which do not somehow, intentionally or not (and I realized
that in the Village it was intentional), teach their children to fear
outsiders--at least, none with which I am familiar. Few societies
teach their young to recognized the things we have in common with
people from other cultures--our common roots, our shared needs, the
similarities of our dreams, etc.
doctrine system set us up from a young age to believe in such
ridiculous nonsense as "American exceptionalism", a statement which
contains more than one level of absurdity when you realize that most
people around the world internally equate the idea of "American" as
anything having to do with folks from the US, which is actually only
one country of several dozen which occupy territory within the
Americas. While this is not directly giving us cause to fear those
outside our borders, the ridiculous notion of nationalist boundaries
itself is, however, amplified. In other words, the "us vs them"
becomes more pronounced as does the idea that people over there
(outside our borders) are somehow fundamentally different than people
here (inside our borders). These notions then lead to the fear of the
outsider, people who want our land or our jobs or people who want to
subvert our cultural ideals.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't think there are many
societies which do not somehow, intentionally or not (and I realized
that in the Village it was intentional), teach their children to fear
outsiders--at least, none with which I am familiar. Few societies
teach their young to recognized the things we have in common with
people from other cultures--our common roots, our shared needs, the
similarities of our dreams, etc.
Barry II
Mar 15, 2012, 12:58:41 AM3/15/12
to Memetics
The Amish have a standing philosophy of considering the technology
that they enter into their cultures before accepting it. Many Amish
villages have only items they can reproduce, though this takes the
form of electricity and other things in some village. It's an
interesting philosophy, and a unique culture.
There's no such thing as "good" or "bad", only a level of what is.
We're born as these computers without any means of connecting our own
processing to the processing of others. As we take our culture, our
language, our social goals and norms... As we indoctrinate ourselves
with these, we become able to perform well within the context of our
culture. Those who grow up Amish tend to carry Amish values, which
make them think with Amish constructs, which is why they often go back
to a life of being Amish after they have their time among the people.
It makes the tools that allow them to success specifically potent
within the context of the Amish culture.
Money is a euphemism for power. The idea is that currency is fluid
enough that you can trade it with what you have, to get what you want-
even if that person doesn't want to have what you have. You exchange
money to get what you want. It acts as an abstraction layer. We
build elements of our society onto it, because we have the capacity to
do so when we are abstracting our wants and our needs with a
placeholder artifact. The very presence of money goes to get between
barriers of any of those excepting those who isolate with very
specific goals in mind. After the Amish, and isolationists, the super
religious also exist, and within these sects, money does not carry the
same weight.
People in these communities have better tools to convince those within
them to do what they want. Amish communities- and, by the way, most
small towns, and cultures which have high birthrate/high deathrate
statistics- simply have to coerce through the use of shame. The
religious have the benefit of trading through the hope of fulfillment
in religious vigor. These are more, yet different euphemisms of
power.
Without words, we would still exist. We create the things within our
life to speak for us. These artifacts of our culture communicate what
we really want, beyond the use of simple 'words'. They convey our
inner desires, vexations, and needs. Most of the time, it is easier
for us to use the elements in our lives that already exist, rather
than build new ones unique to ourselves. Part of this is necessary
(every conversation needs to include the existence of the audience, so
purely creative expressions of self would not be able to cross the
conversational barrier between humans any easier than trying to think
the message straight at another), and part of this is lazy. The
problem with the transmission of an idea is that each person who holds
it needs to have it personally translated for them. It's what makes
the use of euphemisms of power so important. We create value packages
of meaning inherent to the user, and wrap it in the work necessary to
convey the intent of the author. That which properly binds the
connection to others, with the need to have that message related to
oneself is a message that continues. The form and technique are the
very presence of art.
The problem with isolated communities is that while they have power
amongst themselves, the 'words' they describe to others fall flat.
That which builds internally is meaningless externally, which builds
the level of isolation between the cultures, furthering the need to
separate. The 'words' of human life which flow between us and spill
into to many little ponds.
On another note, though I've reworked this a few times to be more
relevant to the original post, I sort of doubt it does anything to
address what you were originally interested in, instead ranting off in
another direction. Since Steve's also went in a completely different
direction, my guess is that none of the three of us actually have the
'words' to connect to one another on this note? I personally find
this interesting.
that they enter into their cultures before accepting it. Many Amish
villages have only items they can reproduce, though this takes the
form of electricity and other things in some village. It's an
interesting philosophy, and a unique culture.
There's no such thing as "good" or "bad", only a level of what is.
We're born as these computers without any means of connecting our own
processing to the processing of others. As we take our culture, our
language, our social goals and norms... As we indoctrinate ourselves
with these, we become able to perform well within the context of our
culture. Those who grow up Amish tend to carry Amish values, which
make them think with Amish constructs, which is why they often go back
to a life of being Amish after they have their time among the people.
It makes the tools that allow them to success specifically potent
within the context of the Amish culture.
Money is a euphemism for power. The idea is that currency is fluid
enough that you can trade it with what you have, to get what you want-
even if that person doesn't want to have what you have. You exchange
money to get what you want. It acts as an abstraction layer. We
build elements of our society onto it, because we have the capacity to
do so when we are abstracting our wants and our needs with a
placeholder artifact. The very presence of money goes to get between
barriers of any of those excepting those who isolate with very
specific goals in mind. After the Amish, and isolationists, the super
religious also exist, and within these sects, money does not carry the
same weight.
People in these communities have better tools to convince those within
them to do what they want. Amish communities- and, by the way, most
small towns, and cultures which have high birthrate/high deathrate
statistics- simply have to coerce through the use of shame. The
religious have the benefit of trading through the hope of fulfillment
in religious vigor. These are more, yet different euphemisms of
power.
Without words, we would still exist. We create the things within our
life to speak for us. These artifacts of our culture communicate what
we really want, beyond the use of simple 'words'. They convey our
inner desires, vexations, and needs. Most of the time, it is easier
for us to use the elements in our lives that already exist, rather
than build new ones unique to ourselves. Part of this is necessary
(every conversation needs to include the existence of the audience, so
purely creative expressions of self would not be able to cross the
conversational barrier between humans any easier than trying to think
the message straight at another), and part of this is lazy. The
problem with the transmission of an idea is that each person who holds
it needs to have it personally translated for them. It's what makes
the use of euphemisms of power so important. We create value packages
of meaning inherent to the user, and wrap it in the work necessary to
convey the intent of the author. That which properly binds the
connection to others, with the need to have that message related to
oneself is a message that continues. The form and technique are the
very presence of art.
The problem with isolated communities is that while they have power
amongst themselves, the 'words' they describe to others fall flat.
That which builds internally is meaningless externally, which builds
the level of isolation between the cultures, furthering the need to
separate. The 'words' of human life which flow between us and spill
into to many little ponds.
On another note, though I've reworked this a few times to be more
relevant to the original post, I sort of doubt it does anything to
address what you were originally interested in, instead ranting off in
another direction. Since Steve's also went in a completely different
direction, my guess is that none of the three of us actually have the
'words' to connect to one another on this note? I personally find
this interesting.
Barry II
Mar 15, 2012, 2:06:31 PM3/15/12
to Memetics
More focused on Steve's response: From the inception of civilization,
humans were bred to fear strangers. When we broke away from hunter/
gatherers, it wasn't a clear break. Agriculture tended toward river-
valleys where fertile soil exists, leaving the remaining hunter-
gatherers to become the barbaric 'hillbillies'. Where a hunter-
gatherer would clearly benefit from the running away (food is
'everywhere', why get uppity about fighting in one place?),
established farms would risk their investment if they went without
fighting for it. While it made more efficient food gathering to put
everything in one place, it also made a convenient site for a hunter-
gatherer to take from. Strangers became a threat to survival, and
after a few stole the crops and animals of the settled, they became
hostile to them. As the barbarians were pushed from fertile areas,
and more and more fertile areas took on a hostility to strangers, food
began to become scarce, and these hunter-gatherers became the monsters
that they needed to be to survive with consideration to the growing
society that hated them.
Even as society progressed, it went from barbarians to an enemy city/
state which wanted to pillage your land. From the city-states, to the
nations. When nations became irrelevant, we turned our eyes to the
strange- the deviant, the insane, and the criminal while always hated
by society, became the superhuman child-molesters, serial killers,
psychopaths, became the ever-present stranger, as communities became
dislocated, and technology led to advanced socialization through non-
traditional means, we lost sights of our neighbors and de-centralized
from our localities. The stranger remains a threat, but what becomes
more apparent are the lack of friends and family we keep. Instead of
keeping town walls, we have no means to establish a cumulative
'safety' with constant exchange of ideas and breaking of barriers.
Children are not errant in being taught to fear outsiders though.
Knowing to protect oneself is earlier on the motivational structure
for good reason- people who don't learn to defend themselves are
culled by the world. What IS becoming different, however, is the
advanced socialization process that we have now due to technology.
Thanks to public forums being able to be accessed worldwide, people
from areas condemned for their "terrorists" are able to use
translation programs to make their personal stories heard in the
conversations dealing with American foreign policy. Kids fear
strangers, and then grow up to learn how to properly know them without
risking themselves. While nationalism is a dying art, there are still
plenty of borders from which we deign our cultural identities, and as
an everyday occurrence, outside of education centers, people are
learning to find things in common with people across the world. The
downside, is that as things become open for discussion, society
becomes more isolated as they make new, non-traditional cultural
barriers and identities out of increasingly esoteric passions and
knowledges. 'Us VS Them' still becomes an increasing problem, whether
by 'Star Trek VS Star Wars', or 'Republican VS Democrat'.
Individualism becomes an issue when you spend your life looking for an
infinitely specific set of personal identities which create a specific
situation which allows you to suggest, 'well, because there are no
people who know what this, then I am unique- because I am unique, no
one understands me'.
On the whole, barriers of entry are not a bad thing. But because our
barriers are becoming theoretical rather than physical, we don't know
how to properly create these identities without making them into a
mess of personal wallowing or pride-bearing.
humans were bred to fear strangers. When we broke away from hunter/
gatherers, it wasn't a clear break. Agriculture tended toward river-
valleys where fertile soil exists, leaving the remaining hunter-
gatherers to become the barbaric 'hillbillies'. Where a hunter-
gatherer would clearly benefit from the running away (food is
'everywhere', why get uppity about fighting in one place?),
established farms would risk their investment if they went without
fighting for it. While it made more efficient food gathering to put
everything in one place, it also made a convenient site for a hunter-
gatherer to take from. Strangers became a threat to survival, and
after a few stole the crops and animals of the settled, they became
hostile to them. As the barbarians were pushed from fertile areas,
and more and more fertile areas took on a hostility to strangers, food
began to become scarce, and these hunter-gatherers became the monsters
that they needed to be to survive with consideration to the growing
society that hated them.
Even as society progressed, it went from barbarians to an enemy city/
state which wanted to pillage your land. From the city-states, to the
nations. When nations became irrelevant, we turned our eyes to the
strange- the deviant, the insane, and the criminal while always hated
by society, became the superhuman child-molesters, serial killers,
psychopaths, became the ever-present stranger, as communities became
dislocated, and technology led to advanced socialization through non-
traditional means, we lost sights of our neighbors and de-centralized
from our localities. The stranger remains a threat, but what becomes
more apparent are the lack of friends and family we keep. Instead of
keeping town walls, we have no means to establish a cumulative
'safety' with constant exchange of ideas and breaking of barriers.
Children are not errant in being taught to fear outsiders though.
Knowing to protect oneself is earlier on the motivational structure
for good reason- people who don't learn to defend themselves are
culled by the world. What IS becoming different, however, is the
advanced socialization process that we have now due to technology.
Thanks to public forums being able to be accessed worldwide, people
from areas condemned for their "terrorists" are able to use
translation programs to make their personal stories heard in the
conversations dealing with American foreign policy. Kids fear
strangers, and then grow up to learn how to properly know them without
risking themselves. While nationalism is a dying art, there are still
plenty of borders from which we deign our cultural identities, and as
an everyday occurrence, outside of education centers, people are
learning to find things in common with people across the world. The
downside, is that as things become open for discussion, society
becomes more isolated as they make new, non-traditional cultural
barriers and identities out of increasingly esoteric passions and
knowledges. 'Us VS Them' still becomes an increasing problem, whether
by 'Star Trek VS Star Wars', or 'Republican VS Democrat'.
Individualism becomes an issue when you spend your life looking for an
infinitely specific set of personal identities which create a specific
situation which allows you to suggest, 'well, because there are no
people who know what this, then I am unique- because I am unique, no
one understands me'.
On the whole, barriers of entry are not a bad thing. But because our
barriers are becoming theoretical rather than physical, we don't know
how to properly create these identities without making them into a
mess of personal wallowing or pride-bearing.
Julie Grey
Mar 26, 2012, 6:52:43 PM3/26/12
to meme...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:13 PM, wayne <steven....@gmail.com> wrote:
I see parallels in US society in which various elements of the
doctrine system set us up from a young age to believe in such
ridiculous nonsense as "American exceptionalism", a statement which
contains more than one level of absurdity when you realize that most
people around the world internally equate the idea of "American" as
anything having to do with folks from the US, which is actually only
one country of several dozen which occupy territory within the
Americas.
I'm not so sure this is completely true. I've only been to a few areas of Colombia, but "America" is not somewhere I can say I'm from (because obviously they are American as well). Other people who have traveled through South America say the same, that saying you are American is silly and in those parts, need better definition (like, I'm from Chicago).
On another idea mentioned, many societies have at least some form of nationalism, if not patriotism. Besides, the U.S. has made some amazing strides with inventions and such. Granted, I literally JUST finished "The Help" so I'm very aware that our culture is far from perfect, especially in the political system. I think that our issue isn't that we are so. damn. proud. of ourselves, it's that in our education system, we don't give non-U.S. Americans enough credit.
While this is not directly giving us cause to fear those
outside our borders, the ridiculous notion of nationalist boundaries
itself is, however, amplified. In other words, the "us vs them"
becomes more pronounced as does the idea that people over there
(outside our borders) are somehow fundamentally different than people
here (inside our borders).
Speaking of which, I did cross the Rio Grande illegally in my trip to Big Bend. Muahahahaha. Take that C&BP/DHS!
These notions then lead to the fear of the
outsider, people who want our land or our jobs or people who want to
subvert our cultural ideals.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't think there are many
societies which do not somehow, intentionally or not (and I realized
that in the Village it was intentional), teach their children to fear
outsiders--at least, none with which I am familiar. Few societies
teach their young to recognized the things we have in common with
people from other cultures--our common roots, our shared needs, the
similarities of our dreams, etc.
Which is prevalent in our society as much as any other (take Germany or Cuba or North Korea for example). It is on a national scale (which is bad) but on the individual level, this is normal (and possibly good). It is human nature to fear the outsider. Look at kids. The bad and good is that parents teach children the be wary of strangers because there are a lot of psychos out there, in here, etc. But children will also hide behind mama around someone new. Fear of the unknown is a survival instinct, but it becomes tied to a group as children age.
What do you think a society that is completely welcoming to outsiders would look like? Or they wouldn't even view it that way because everyone would be the same. A hippy commune? What do hippies do with rapists and child molesters who want to join?
On Mar 14, 5:46 pm, Jbird <nannygr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I'm reading "thought contagion" by aaron lynch and he brings up
> some interesting ideas.
>
> ~The Amish have a taboo against modern farm machines. The Amish
> continue this belief because they are separate from surrounding
> communities (the U.S.) and so they can pass down this belief to the
> next generation (about 78% stay as Amish) without interference. The
> next generation will be quite large because they are baby making
> machines. In 1900, there were like, 5 or something. In 1920, they
> were not quite 10,000. In 1940, they were about 25,000. In 1960,
> they were about 45,000. In 1980, they were almost 100,000. In 2000,
> they were over 140,000.
>
> ~Wealth is not a good example of measuring the spread of an idea.
> Iran could have been fairly advanced as a country with its' economic
> growth/oil exports, but though Islamic fundamentalism devotes effort
> to spread and strengthen its' faith, it also isolates from Western
> technological development, investment, and trade. So religious
> isolationism set back its' development.
>
> Isn't that amazing? If you haven't seen the movie "The Village", it's
> supposed to be a thriller but I took it as a group of people who chose
> to be isolated and kinda/sorta the impact it had on them and their
> offspring. It was strange how they manipulated their children into
> fearing the outside world.
> Thoughts?
Julie Grey
Julie Grey
Mar 26, 2012, 7:11:28 PM3/26/12
to meme...@googlegroups.com
On another note, though I've reworked this a few times to be more
relevant to the original post, I sort of doubt it does anything to
address what you were originally interested in, instead ranting off in
another direction. Since Steve's also went in a completely different
direction, my guess is that none of the three of us actually have the
'words' to connect to one another on this note? I personally find
this interesting.
Someone once told me that when they were a kid, they interpreted a poem or a short story. The teacher said that it was wrong. Now, as reasonable adults, I'm pretty sure we all know that the kid wasn't wrong. Even if the author explained themself before they died, we all know that writings can have many meanings. I remember being in high school, listening to a Chicago author answering questions about her book. She said that we teenagers were amazing. That we noticed connections that she didn't even mean to put in the book but make sense once someone pointed them out.
The teachers' meaning was pretty clear: you are wrong and I am right. That kid probably never enjoyed books after that. I wonder if girls are pushed toward literature slightly more than boys based on how people treat females versus males... Which of course means the pay scale would be lowering (or already is because of the internet)...
--
Julie Grey
Julie Grey
Barry
Apr 26, 2012, 3:50:49 PM4/26/12
to meme...@googlegroups.com
Perspective is the word that acknowledges out individuality as a world player. There are few, if any, straight answers. There's still some wrong answers, of course. If the book was written about hamsters, and the kid said it in such a way that it turned out to be a poop joke, for the purpose of derailing the subject, then it'd be different than if the kid was given a short story, made it relevant to their own life, and then had the teacher mark it down for not being part of the "grand picture", or "author's intention".
Or, if the kid heard hamsters, and thought gerbils, then it isn't the kid's fault that he got it wrong, but it would still be a different story than the one told. The story of how a person gets to their answer is one that is more important than the answer they got. We've known this for hundreds of years, parade it around on motivational posters, and yet still can't figure it out in real life. Actions have consequences. Physically, this means that no matter why you put your finger in the electric socket, you're gonna get shocked. But when you're building this web of "truth" about why things happen, you lose the directness of the action=consequence, and must consider what subjective action happened (did he put his finger in the socket because he didn't know, or because I told him that he couldn't and he rebelled against me) to "create" the truth of the consequence (leading a person who never knew to be once shocked, twice shy, and the "action" of moving against the authority to be built with the authority's subjective consequence of grounding).
What the student saw is their subjective experience. It may not be "wrong", but depending between the "right" answers, a different learning experience is found. If a teacher connects the short story to a history lesson, they are building education in both history, and the relevance of literature to history. If a kid takes from it a personal message, say about how their father relates to the family, after divorce, he is educated in his personal family structure, and in how literature carries a personal experience. Both are important lessons, but the "mass story" of the curriculum utilizes both building blocks seperately, and they have very different proverbial shapes.
It is impossible to teach in our system considering subjectivity. Education is built to be spread to thirty + people at the same time. Each person's world would require a vastly different connection, each connection requiring a teacher to be personally aware of each student's life and the meaningful connections within it. The better students sacrifice their subjective outlook to connect to a "mass story" which allows them easy access to facts, which build their education. The worse students miss facts as a "clearly objective" "mass story" does not reflect in them, and they are left by the wayside.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages