Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘anthropology

Not terribly affected by External Influences: Community Anthropology

Anthropology is the study of traditional family structure along with relationship with the neighbors. For example, the rate of mixed marriages with foreign ethnic groups of immigrants, even to the second generation.

Most countries have a patrilinear family structure (from father) where the father represents the family status in the community, even if the wife is of a higher status. And the daughters are considered implicitly of a lower status than the sons.

Modern fast communication facilities, transportation and trades cannot obliterate the rooted family structures in the short term.

The traditional family structure in Germany, and the Germanophone countries or Homo-Helveticus such as Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, the three tiny States of Latvia, Estonia , Lithuania,  and including Sweden, Ukraine, Japan and Rwanda  has this additional characteristic:

Even the sons are not equals in the family attitudes and one of them, preferably the elder son, is the one representing the dynasty and the status of the family.

In these countries the community:

1. Blindly obey laws and respect hierarchy and authoritative figures: They are willing to stop at the red light for ever in a desolate street, and refrain from jaywalking when no cars are passing

2. They are isolationists and abhor the universality in philosophical thinking.

3. Communities enjoy self-autonmous political policies and consensus is the common denominator process.

4. Apprenticeship ,after graduation and for several years, is the main qualification for a well-oaid job. Consequently, graduate students don’t mind being paid pittance during their period of  apprenticeship.

These communities are prone to jump on the bandwagon of dictatorial regimes when opportunities are available in period of calamities.

The Anglo-Saxon societies such as England and the Netherland are universal in nature, but they don’t go as far the Latin countries such as France, Spain and Italy in applying their administrative systems on other societies when they occupy or colonize them.

The Anglo-Saxon societies refrained from applying blindly their unique laws on the colonies.

Their politics is: “Don’t meddle in internal affairs that don’t harm the sovereignty of the motherland, and make sure to take the money and wealth and run

Latin countries attempt to force uniform administrative systems on their colonies

Propaganda spread the myth that the US follow the anthropology of Anglo-Saxon societies. I beg to differ:

1. The US short history has demonstrated an isolationist trend in every turn and was comfortable growing and relying on its internal market.

Most of the discrimination behaviors of Germany were emulated according to the US laws and trends.

The US didn’t join the war against Germany in the two World wars until the very end, for financial reasons because Germany  didn’t accumulate much capital to repay its debts.

2. Until recently, the US exhibited the Anglo-Saxon economical strategy of “taking the money and run” and let the communities overseas fight out their differences.

The traditional family structure  in Poland is highly individualistic

The Slavic societies in central Europe and the Balkan countries (Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia…) have a different anthropology than Russia and Germany.

The Russian societies and Belarussia, including Viet Nam and Croatia, share the same anthropological trends

Note: It appears that a language is the expression of the anthropology of a society. The more common the terms and syntax structure the closer are the communities.

“How do you feel?” (Jan. 30, 2010)

            A friend asked me one of his frequently mindless questions: “How do you feel?”  I said “I am feeling my shit sexy.” Usually, I say what I mean.  After my glamorous bowel movement, I had lunch and then had a long walk, and then I read and wrote and I still felt the effects of my bowel movement.  Three hours later, I am feeling this lovely pain in my guts; a sensation that I had emptied a huge load with the accompanying pressures on my mind. I had siesta and felt this sexy pain. Satisfying bowel movement is the greatest achievement among my daily tasks.

            My friend was appalled by my incomprehensible reply and said: “I was under the impression that you are totally broke to indulge in luxury.”  I like to invent new expressions and terminologies in English: I was not born and raised in an authentic English speaking country.  I was saved from memorizing and regurgitating boring idioms; I am not up-to-date on the latest slangs.  I have got to do with the classics; more so that I was never in linguistics, anthropology, or ethnology fields of study.

            It was during one of these sensational feelings that Barak Obama was elected President.  You might heave a sigh of dejection but it is not just a coincidence. I don’t like certified crazy Bush Junior, that President who never set foot on “foreign soils” before he was elected also “President”, though he enjoyed the same moments of sensation. If you do the probability math you might realize that the odds are actually pretty high for coincidence of shitting sensations and catastrophic events.  I can confirm that the odds were a certainty that Martin Luther King and Malcom X would be assassinated.

            What is this?  When I am ecstatic I cannot think; when I am morose I cannot think. I have to induce that I think when I am in a lukewarm temperament. Thus, “Not Thinking” and extreme mood zones are highly correlated; thinking and tasteless moods are thus pretty much independent: it is a firm deductive result; you might think, you might not think (same different), what you are thinking do not make sense, or your thinking can be revolutionary verging to lunacy.

            Just to tell you that physical exigency is a fundamental factor to your mental output. I sometimes wonder at critics psychoanalyzing authors by their books.  If critics are honest then they should comprehend a book was mostly “excreted” during lukewarm mood periods; thus, psychoanalysis is not valid in these cases: the author should be observed in “a not thinking” instances. Critics believe that authors basically lie down on comfortable coach, talk to themselves and record their babbling; critics get in the skin of relaxed a author who is figuring out that audiences have sworn the oath of confidentiality as his mental shrink.  I don’t usually go off on tangents but it feels good.

Twilight of “Knowledge lovers”: Part 2

In part 1, I exposed the theme that philosophy was the super-structure of the dominant class in any period of what is now called “Class Ideology”, and that the economical aspect was not included in the philosophical system of reasoning.

Man has been asking questions; he has been cultivating doubts.

Every question generated many non-answered questions.  Every man is a philosopher once he starts jotting down coherent questions and then realizes that his “universe” is based on doubts.

Most of his questions have no satisfactory resolutions to constitute a perceived “structured comprehensive world” in his brain.

A philosopher sets out to devise a set of structural questions that he thinks are “logically deductive” in nature (it means that it would not be feasible to answer a previous question before resolving several basic questions).  Thus, philosophers have been driven to accepting a few fundamental “given” solutions, or “elemental facts,” or principles just to get going in their projects of building structured understanding of man and the universe.

Since Antiquity, philosophy (love of knowledge) was a catch-all term to represent all aspects of knowledge, including metaphysical concepts.  Since sciences were barely founded on facts or empirical experiments (not appreciated within the dominant classes), except during the Islamic Golden Age (9th to 12th century) and after Galileo in the 16th century “what is not measured should be measured”, philosophers fundamentally based their structure on abstract premises and deductive logic.

This makes sense: Once knowledge is firmly grounded on empirical facts (assuming the design of the experiment is valid) then philosophy should take secondary place in rational societies.

Sure, the name and meaning of philosophy was lost in the absurd long gestation toward the advance of knowledge.  The mathematician Descartes was the first who tried to delimit boundaries between sciences and philosophy: Descartes differentiated between invariant primal impressions and secondary perceived variables. It was the period when sciences got ascendance over abstract philosophical structures.

Before the 16th century, Europe’s philosophical systems were towing sciences (principally natural sciences).

Descartes influence stems from differentiating between forms of realities or “substances”.  The first kind of  substance is the mind which cannot be subdivided; examples of such substances are the notions of time, space, and mass with which quantitative properties of an object can be measured.  The second kind of substance or “extensions to the matter” represents the qualitative properties of an object such as color, smell, taste, and the like.  Descartes division in forms of reality is being validated in equations: the right hand side and left hand side in any equation must be compatible with the same dimensions of time, space, and mass (what is known as compatibility in units of measurement). By the way, Descartes was a lousy philosopher but first-rate mathematician.

There are attempts at “refreshing” interest in philosophy by giving new names and labels to ancient philosophical schools and beginning with the prefix “neo-something”.  For example, we hear about neo-empiricism, neo-Marxism, neo-Darwinism, neo-materialism, neo-existentialism, analytical philosophy and so forth.

All these new lines of current philosophical structures have historical roots that reach to antiquity and pre-Socratic philosophers. The new “refreshed” lines of thinking apply current scientific fields (such as anthropology, ethnology, archaeology, or sociology) to ancient philosophical systems to validate their contentions.

For example, current nuclear physicists are fundamentally pre-Socratic in their quest for the elemental matters; they want to be able to offer a satisfactory explanation of “what is matter?” This problem is thus a vital part of their “life’s philosophy”, the “essence” or an answer to the question “what is my nature”?

I conjecture that most universities have branches called “philosophy” or something related to logical processes: students need topics to write thesis and dissertations.

Sciences have taken over: they can extend answers to “what can be answered”.  Sciences are far more efficient than philosophy: faulty answers go unnoticed very effectively.

There are very few practiced scientists, but every man think he is a philosopher: man can feel what’s wrong with a philosophical system, but he refrains to claim knowledge in sciences.




October 2020

Blog Stats

  • 1,426,961 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 774 other followers

%d bloggers like this: