Comments on: The Social Trinity http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:30:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: ChandraShakti http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-9571 ChandraShakti Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:03:43 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-9571 I went to college in Alaska. The native languages professor told me that. Not something I would expect to happen if it was merely urban legend. I went to college in Alaska. The native languages professor told me that. Not something I would expect to happen if it was merely urban legend.

]]> By: Benjamin Shender http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8993 Benjamin Shender Sun, 09 Apr 2006 01:14:06 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8993 Technically the Inuit language is based on a complicated inter-mixing of prefixes and suffixes with relatively few root words. There is and can be no exact count of how many words the Inuit have, for snow or otherwise. Technically the Inuit language is based on a complicated inter-mixing of prefixes and suffixes with relatively few root words. There is and can be no exact count of how many words the Inuit have, for snow or otherwise.

]]> By: limukala http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8982 limukala Sat, 08 Apr 2006 21:46:50 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8982 actually you are quoting an urban legend chandra. Most inuits and eskimos don't really have any more words for snow than English, but I guarantee you most of them can percieve and understand snow much better than either of us. actually you are quoting an urban legend chandra. Most inuits and eskimos don’t really have any more words for snow than English, but I guarantee you most of them can percieve and understand snow much better than either of us.

]]> By: Rick Larson http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8899 Rick Larson Sat, 08 Apr 2006 01:31:19 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8899 :-) :-)

]]> By: TonyZ http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8857 TonyZ Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:59:25 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8857 What humanity needs to do is come to full terms in the conrete, biological sense, of our duality. Gender neutrality accepts that one position must be taken. patriarchy, obviously places man above women, and matriacrhy, vice versa. so by standing in one postition, still looking for the leadership, the truth of words, we disregard the fact that there are men and women. But men aren't jsut men, and women aren't just women. the language is using the power system handed down from religion to pare-down the physio-chemical on-off mechanism into one firing on one neutron, when the brain is more than comfortable pairing thousands and millions or on-off pairings at once. But, we cannot ignore how the channels, or shortcuts,in our brains work. we cannot erase our temporary internet file cabinet, we are in many ways, stuck recognizing this and this and that as that, and the small changes we can make through new programming are our only hope. TOnyZ What humanity needs to do is come to full terms in the conrete, biological sense, of our duality.

Gender neutrality accepts that one position must be taken.

patriarchy, obviously places man above women, and matriacrhy, vice versa.

so by standing in one postition, still looking for the leadership, the truth of words, we disregard the fact that there are men and women.

But men aren’t jsut men, and women aren’t just women.

the language is using the power system handed down from religion to pare-down the physio-chemical on-off mechanism into one firing on one neutron, when the brain is more than comfortable pairing thousands and millions or on-off pairings at once.

But, we cannot ignore how the channels, or shortcuts,in our brains work. we cannot erase our temporary internet file cabinet, we are in many ways, stuck recognizing this and this and that as that, and the small changes we can make through new programming are our only hope.

TOnyZ

]]> By: ChandraShakti http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8848 ChandraShakti Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:13:16 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8848 This is responding to a thread started under Jason's Reductionism article and needing to be moved to a more appropriate page. "the English language, homo sapiens is commonly referred to as 'man', or 'mankind'? I mean, that is not a false statement, is it?" That used to be a true statement. It no longer is. "Aren't there better ways to achieve equal regard and equal rights for women and men?" So long as there is the inequality in the language, it will shape people's perceptions. I am a linguist by education and am probably more aware than most of how the words available and the categories they define shape how people see the world. For instance: in English we only have a few words for snow (snow, sleet and slush) In an Eskimo language - I believe it is Yupik - they have over 30 words for snow. Details that an English speaker would simply miss. Because we lack the language for it, we simply cannot conceive of thirty different kinds of snow. In the same way persisting in referring to humanity as Man creates the subconscious impression that men are human and women are something not quite human. I deeply object to that. This is not political correctness. Political correctness is using language to obfuscate an issue. Like calling fat people adiposally enhanced. Frankly calling all humans men is more obfuscating than calling them human. This is responding to a thread started under Jason’s Reductionism article and needing to be moved to a more appropriate page.
“the English language, homo sapiens is commonly referred to as ‘man’, or ‘mankind’? I mean, that is not a false statement, is it?” That used to be a true statement. It no longer is.
“Aren’t there better ways to achieve equal regard and equal rights for women and men?” So long as there is the inequality in the language, it will shape people’s perceptions. I am a linguist by education and am probably more aware than most of how the words available and the categories they define shape how people see the world.
For instance: in English we only have a few words for snow (snow, sleet and slush) In an Eskimo language - I believe it is Yupik - they have over 30 words for snow. Details that an English speaker would simply miss. Because we lack the language for it, we simply cannot conceive of thirty different kinds of snow.
In the same way persisting in referring to humanity as Man creates the subconscious impression that men are human and women are something not quite human. I deeply object to that. This is not political correctness.
Political correctness is using language to obfuscate an issue. Like calling fat people adiposally enhanced.
Frankly calling all humans men is more obfuscating than calling them human.

]]> By: Janene http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8846 Janene Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:59:14 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8846 Hey -- Well sure -- but we (or at least I) have been talking about mechnisms, not likes and dislikes :-) Janene Hey –

Well sure — but we (or at least I) have been talking about mechnisms, not likes and dislikes :-)

Janene

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8843 Jason Godesky Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:07:57 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8843 That's true ... but you really don't see anyone who's comfortable with innovation, much less thinking it's a good thing, until the Industrial Revolution. That’s true … but you really don’t see anyone who’s comfortable with innovation, much less thinking it’s a good thing, until the Industrial Revolution.

]]> By: Janene http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8842 Janene Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:32:30 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8842 Hey -- ummm... I think this is another of those 'change in quantity, not change in kind' kinda issues. Before the renaissance, things still changed relatively quickly ever since the AR. The rise and fall of empires, with all of the cultural accoutrements... Mesopotamia was uniquely consistant throught the various invasions and political shifts -- and this is remarked on repeatedly, that Sumerian culture <i>survived relatively intact</i> for so long in the face of different peoples taking political control... but aside from Mesopotamia, we really do see many many changes in culturally accepted norms through the rest of 'history.' And at a much, much greater level/speed then you would generally find in H-G society. Hey Jim -- did you really just say that H-G culture is resistant to change because, well, they resist change effectively? (Sorry, couldn't resist poking a little fund :-)) Janene Hey –

ummm… I think this is another of those ‘change in quantity, not change in kind’ kinda issues.

Before the renaissance, things still changed relatively quickly ever since the AR. The rise and fall of empires, with all of the cultural accoutrements… Mesopotamia was uniquely consistant throught the various invasions and political shifts — and this is remarked on repeatedly, that Sumerian culture survived relatively intact for so long in the face of different peoples taking political control… but aside from Mesopotamia, we really do see many many changes in culturally accepted norms through the rest of ‘history.’ And at a much, much greater level/speed then you would generally find in H-G society.

Hey Jim — did you really just say that H-G culture is resistant to change because, well, they resist change effectively? (Sorry, couldn’t resist poking a little fund :-))

Janene

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8839 Jason Godesky Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:13:30 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8839 The kind of accelerated cultural change we see in the past two centuries is because for the first time, we think invention and innovation are good things. These are novel attitudes, brought about because of fossil fuels. The kind of accelerated cultural change we see in the past two centuries is because for the first time, we think invention and innovation are good things. These are novel attitudes, brought about because of fossil fuels.

]]>