Now we have established that the human creature is an aggregate of cells that can take in information from the world outside the skin. We have seen that a little molecular bunching on the end of a chromosome will decide which of the two basic categories of male and female. And we have understood that there are many variations and stumbles.
An infant comes to the world exterior to the womb already shaped by the months of formation. Molecular glitches, wandering pathways of tubes and connections, DNA altered slightly by the epigenome or the central stem of the helixes or by interference from the mother’s system -- all this means no two babies are alike. Their potentials will be met by the various baby care strategies of the place, an ecology that demands practices from putting the baby in a sling on the back of the mother or an older sibling, to putting the baby in a container like a baby carrier swung/propped everywhere, to leaving the child with a lot of others or in the care of a few people focused on food and cleanliness. One baby can tolerate his treatment, another is always unhappy, and some will die. The lucky will be happy.
At or close to origin, humans are random, varied, and organic, meaning they just grow every which way, sometimes leaving out parts or adding too many. As soon as other humans can get at them, and either a blue or a pink blanket is wrapped around them (assuming they are in a prosperous gender-dyadic place), forces will be applied to get them to conform so as to survive in that place. I have a relative who was born with no thumb: the surgeons moved her big toe to take the place of the thumb. It works. She's old enough to be a granny now.
Experiments show that the convictions created in the child during the earliest years will be the “truth” to him or her and only experiences verging on trauma can change them. The negatives are more intense than positives. Day care groups can trigger lifelong yearning for a stable pair bond. Or it can go the other way, so only a group can feel “normal.”
Learning is achieved by interacting with the surroundings in ways that inscribe the interaction -- through the neural information sent to the brain -- on memory, sensations inscribed on the molecules of the cells. (We still don't know exactly how.) To get there to the brain, the sensory information is sorted once at the point of acquisition (ears, eyes, nose), maybe filtered or sorted somewhere else, probably more information is added through previous memories, and finally THEN arrives in the brain where behavior originates. If the behavior is welcomed (babbling, toddling) it is reinforced and continues. If it is discouraged (“don’t eat THAT!) it dies out.
Early learning in the interest of fitting into the community becomes “moral,” which is a big part of “religion.” Morality is what your community wants you to do and is a reason for punishing you or even killing you if you don’t do it. Survival of individuals, families and communities depend on morality -- though sometimes that’s an illusion, because the original moral basis is gone. (Leviticus' prohibition of mixed fibers is laughable now.) One is no longer endangering everyone by doing this forbidden thing. A good match between moral conviction and the reality of what is dangerous is a good indicator of success and happiness.
The following material comes from a theory: Relational Models Theory developed by Alan Page Fiske, an anthropologist. The idea is basically that people are living in one of four kinds of social group:
“Any relationship informed by Communal Sharing presupposes a bounded group, the members of which are not differentiated from each other. Distinguishing individual identities are socially irrelevant. Generosity within a Communal Sharing group is not usually conceived of as altruism due to this shared identity, even though there is typically much behavior which otherwise would seem like extreme altruism. Members of a Communal Sharing relationship typically feel that they share something in common, such as blood, deep attraction, national identity, a history of suffering, or the joy of food. Examples include nationalism, racism, intense romantic love, indiscriminately killing any member of an enemy group in retaliation for the death of someone in one’s own group, sharing a meal.”
This state is opposed by “An Authority Ranking relationship . . . a hierarchy in which individuals or groups are placed in relative higher or lower relations. Those ranked higher have prestige and privilege not enjoyed by those who are lower. Further, the higher typically have some control over the actions of those who are lower. However, the higher also have duties of protection and pastoral care for those beneath them. . . . examples include military rankings, the authority of parents over their children especially in more traditional societies, caste systems, and God’s authority over humankind.
In Equality Matching, one attempts to achieve and sustain an even balance and one-to-one correspondence between individuals or groups. When there is not a perfect balance, people try to keep track of the degree of imbalance in order to calculate how much correction is needed. . . . If you and I are out of balance, we know what would restore equality. Examples include the principle of one-person/one-vote, rotating credit associations, equal starting points in a race, taking turns offering dinner invitations, and giving an equal number of minutes to each candidate to deliver an on-air speech.
Market Pricing is the application of ratios to social interaction. This can involve maximization or minimization as in trying to maximize profit or minimize loss. . . . all utilitarian principles are applications of Market Pricing, since the maximum and the minimum are both proportions. Other examples include rents, taxes, cost-benefit analyses including military estimates of kill ratios and proportions of fighter planes potentially lost, tithing, and prostitution.
(An interesting related essay: http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/economics/the-mischievous-science-of-richard-thaler)
Since the first group we know is usually family, we get many of our ideas about how groups ought to be from that source. Parents are the first authorities. A bad experience with that -- oppression or neglect or abuse -- can make that pattern an anathema for the rest of a person's life. People are aware that except in the military or some corporation, America is supposed to be a democracy -- "Equality Matched" -- but it is clearly "Market Prices." This dishonesty has bad consequences. One cannot base morality on "bait and switch."
Bruce Bennet Strachan correcting workbooks
My father, publicly dedicated to the principle of cooperation, was revealed when he would say about some family decision, "We'll take a vote and then I'll decide." He never could understand that there was no use in a vote if he overrode everyone's preferences. Neither did he ever feel the growing resentment among us. This is not an unusual pattern. He felt morally entitled, but so did we.
No comments:
Post a Comment