Missionary de-converted by "Savages"

[Wilder]

This is a short expert from a book called Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes. I can't help but find it quite inspiring. What do you think?

[Chaigidel]

I have heard about this tribe, a fascinating group with a very unique view of existence.

God is only found when you be as you were meant to be, illusions only leave chains.

I have always been mystified by faith as a foundation rather than a tool.( in relation to the loss of the chaps faith--how beholden one is to the ideas he keeps)

[Ummon]

Huh?

The most intelligent possible comment.

(Sheep don't experience dyspepsia)

[Wilder]

Huh?

The most intelligent possible comment.

(Sheep don't experience dyspepsia)

I might regret this, but what are you confused about? and to that end what are you talking about?

@Chaigidel, out of curiosity, what is the difference between faith as a tool and faith as a foundation? Can you provide any real world examples?

[Ummon]

I am confused about what exactly would be the problem. A healthy animal self is a-moral. A healthy human self is permanently crucified by experience. As such no animal needs Jesus, whereas a human needs something of the like. These people are, although very healthy, more like animals than like humans.

The missionary was seduced by his own nostalgic vision of their existence.

[Wilder]

I am confused about what exactly would be the problem. A healthy animal self is a-moral. A healthy human self is permanently crucified by experience. As such no animal needs Jesus, whereas a human needs something of the like. These people are, although very healthy, more like animals than like humans.

The missionary was seduced by his own nostalgic vision of their existence.

That's pretty patronizing. Still though, are you seriously arguing that we are not animals?

[Ummon]

We are cultural animals. They are this only to a very limited extent, their life being simple and unchanging and apparently, fully in the present. A cultural animal has use for the Logos, an animal tout court, not.

Reality can't be patronizing: listen to the pirahans, reality just is.

There is an illustrative story (among many) of Everett being approached by men in the tribe who wanted him to buy them a big canoe from a neighboring tribe. With all the right instincts as a missionary and development agent, he did everything needed to transfer the skill of canoe construction to them. He invited the neighbors to come in and demonstrate, and insisted that the Pirahã men work alongside them. Not long afterwards, the same men came to him for money to buy another big boat. "I told them they could make their own now. They said, `Pirahãns don't make canoes.'"

We do.

Sometimes they help each other but at others, let nature take it course without interfering, especially around childbirth. They may not come to the aid of a birthing mother who is in trouble and dispose of infants without mothers. They make a big fuss about old men lost in the jungle. They let children play with dangerous things and don't coddle them when they hurt themselves. The crying of weaned children, who no longer get so attended to, are ignored. Children are quickly given adult tasks. They don't seem to fight much among themselves but have killed outsiders and exiled members who were troublesome.

No wonder they laugh so much.

[Wilder]

We are cultural animals. They are this only to a very limited extent, their life being simple and unchanging and apparently, fully in the present. A cultural animal has use for the Logos, an animal tout court, not.

Reality can't be patronizing: listen to the pirahas: reality just is.



We do.

Hate to brake it to you buddy, but in any meaningful sense we are animals just as much as the Pirahãs or dogs, or sword fish, or earthworms. We have made no transformation in the past 10,000 years, that makes us need man-gods.

And yes assuming that someone is "more animal" than anyone else is patronizing. Although I meant patronizing to the missionary who you dismiss as being won over by romanticism and not by genuine spiritual change. Trust me, if you spend the majority of your life living in a hut the Amazon, you are inured to the "romantic" elements quickly.

[Gromovnik]

he did it to get more action with their women...

[Ummon]

See how wisdom spreads fast?

[Ummon]

Ah, alas. That was a show of scarce knowledge. Our bodily form has not changed, but we go to the moon. 10000 years ago we didn't.

That's through cultural artifacts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_artifact

A cultural artifact is a human-made object which gives information about the culture of its creator and users. The artifact may change over time in what it represents, how it appears and how and why it is used as the culture changes over time. Usage of this term encompasses the type of archaeological artifact which is recovered at archaeological sites; however, man-made objects of modern society are also cultural artifacts. For example, in an anthropological context, a television is an artifact of modern culture.

Your concept of animal is childish, and unscientific, and your hate and brakes, really silly.

[Wilder]

Ah, alas. That was a show of scarce knowledge. Our bodily form has not changed, but we go to the moon. 10000 years ago we didn't.

Your concept of animal is childish, and unscientific, and your hate and brakes, really silly.

NO

My concept of the animal is entirely scientific. I dare you to find ANY legit scientific source of information that defines animals as something separate from humans. So what if we went to the moon? Then we were animals on the moon. That does not make us need anything new, aside perhaps from rocket fuel and space suites. Ummon, you could stand a healthy dose of literalism in your diet.

Furthermore, I would even make a supposition: that ALL paradigms that separate us physically or spiritually from animals, is a fallacy, and based on the fear of not being "god's ultimate creation", which is totally self delusion.

Edit: you are confusing the issue by bring up non relevant stuff, and acting like it's role in the discussion is self explanatory. I see your game, and I am not impressed. Providing the definition for "Cultural artifact" is great, but provide an EXPLICIT, FULLY DEVELOPED and CLEAR explanation to it's relevance. The mysterious comment about sheep stomach aches remains unexplained for instance. I have seen your posting style other threads and you have obnoxious habit of not addressing the issue at hand, only slinging philosophical jargon (badly) like it is going out of style. I am honestly interested to hear what you have to say, but please do so in a intelligible manor, because I do not have the time or motivation to deceiver cryptic statements and psychobabble, and will ignore your comments. This style does not come across as smart or wise, or even curious or well informed, but rather simply coming from someone who has sat through some intro to religion/philosophy classes at the local community collage, and did not really understand anything.

[Ummon]

Another silly post.

All humans are animals, but not all animals are humans (sadly, if all Bs are As, not all As are Bs). Most of all, humans are not just animals, but cultural animals.

What distinguishes humans from other animals, in their cephalization index, and their unique ability to have a culture. A culture which acts as a mediator between them and the environement instead of their body. Do you hunt with your hands, or buy food (by using those little cartaceous things called banknotes)?

By very admission of the writer of the book, pirahans have a very, very limited use of culture (making artifacts, predicting behaviour, meta-regulating their behaviour based on such predictions -> in other words they do not seem to have meta-cognition in a sensible form, meta-cognition which according to Vygotskij and other contextualists is the root of interiorization of cultural and social constructs and the formation of mental schemes -> and this relates also with the poverty of their language, rudimentary instrument for such an interiorization). They can be seen, with this regard, as an intermediate stage, more pertaining to the general category animal, than the specific subcategory human (cultural animal).

I could stand a healthy dose of no more nonsense in my diet instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition

Metacognition is defined as "cognition about cognition", or "knowing about knowing."[1] It can take many forms; "it includes knowledge about when and where to use particular strategies for learning or for problem solving."[1] "Metamemory, individuals' knowledge about memory, is an especially important form of metacognition."[1] Differences in metacognitive processing across cultures have not been widely studied, but could provide better outcomes in cross- cultural learning between teachers and students.[2] Some evolutionary psychologists hypothesize that metacognition is used as a survival tool, which would make metacognition the same across cultures.[2] Writings on metacognition can be traced back at least as far as De Anima and the Parva Naturalia of the Greek philosopher Aristotle.[3]

Through the life-span
"Even young children are curious about the nature of the human mind."[1] "They have a theory of mind, which refers to awareness of one's own mental processes and the mental processes of others."[1] "Children's theory of mind changes as they develop through childhood."[1]

In the ages 2 and 3, children begin to understand 3 mental states[1]:

Perceptions- "The child realizes that another person sees what is in front of their eyes and not necessarily what is front of the child's eyes."[1]
Emotions- "The child can distinguish between positive (happy) and negative (sad) emotions."[1]
Desires- "The child understands that if someone wants something, he or she will try to get it."[1]
In the ages 4 and 5, "children come to understand the mind can represent objects and events accurately or inaccurately."[1] "The realization that people can have false beliefs (beliefs that are not true) develops in a majority of children by the time they are 5 years old."[1] "Children's understanding of thinking has some limitiations in early childhood.[1] They often underestimate when mental activity is likely occuring."[1] "For example, they fail to attribute mental activity to someone who is sitting quietly, reading, or talking."[1]

Beyond the age of 5, "children have a deepening appreciation of the mind itself rather than just an understanding of mental states."[1] "Children do not see the mind as an active constructor of knowledge or processing center and move from understanding that beliefs can be false to realizing that the same event can be open to multiple interpretations until middle and late childhood."[1]

In adolescence and adulthood, "people have an increased capacity to monitor and manage cognitive resources to effectively meet the demands of learning a task."[1] "This increased metacognitive ability results in cognitive functioning and learning becoming more effective."[1] "By middle age, adults have accumulated a great deal of metacognitive knowledge and can draw on this metacognitive knowledge to help them combat a decline in memory skill."[1]

Metacognitive strategies
The metacognitive-like processes are ubiquitous; especially, when it comes to the discussion of self-regulated learning.

http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/met...tion/start.htm

Why Are Metacognitive Strategies So Important?

As students become more skilled at using metacognitive strategies, they gain confidence and become more independent as learners. Independence leads to ownership as student's realize they can pursue their own intellectual needs and discover a world of information at their fingertips.

The task of educators is to acknowledge, cultivate, exploit and enhance the metacognitive capabilities of all learners.

http://www.essayexpress.com/essay/012930.html

Vygotsky's theories had three general claims: (a) The claim that human social and
psychological processes are fundamentally shaped by cultural tools; (b) The claim that
higher mental functioning in the individual emerges out of social processes; and (c) the
developmental method Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which is the concept that the
potential of the child is limited to a specific time span.
According to Vygotsky's theory the Zone of Proximal Development problem-solving skills of
tasks can be placed into three categories. These are as follows: (a) those performed
independently by the student; (b) those that cannot be performed even with help; and (c)
those that fall between the two extremes, the tasks that can be performed with help from
others. Vygotsky's ZPD emphasizes his belief that learning is, fundamentally, a socially
mediated activity.
There are two parts to ZPD, scaffolding and subjectivity. Scaffolding is the help given
to a child that supports the child's learning. Scaffolding is similar to scaffolding
around a building; it can be taken away after the need for it has ended. When a child is
shown how to do something and, can now, accomplish this task on its own. Subjectivity, on
the other hand, is the arrival at a point of shared understanding, especially when two
individuals have had differing viewpoints on an issue. The people around the student
greatly affect the way he or she sees the world. The type and quality of these tools
(i.e. people) surrounding the child greatly determine the pattern and rate of development
of the child.
Arguments and Comparisons
Egocentric speech is contrasted with socialized speech. In other words it is non-social,
non-communicative to others. It is spoken for the sake of saying it. It is usually found
in three to five year olds. Egocentric speech is split into three categories. They are
repetition, monologue (thinking aloud) and dual/collective monologue. Vygotsky argues
that speech moves from communicative "social speech" to inner egocentric speech. Piaget
proposes the opposite. He believes that children begin by voicing a personal dialogue and
move to social speech. Piaget argues that egocentric speech goes away with maturity while
Vygotsky claims that it becomes internalized as an adult. Vygotsky found that a child
spoke egocentrically when he was grasping or remedying a situation. Comparisons of Piaget
(PG) and Vygotsky (VG) beliefs on egocentric speech are as follows:
(PG)- Development of thinking... Language moves from individual to social.
(VG)-Development of thinking... Language moves from the social to the individual.
(PG)- Egocentric Speech is simply an accompaniment to a child's actions
(VG)- Egocentric speech is not accompaniment: it helps child to reason
(PG)- Egocentric speech appears first, dies out and is replaced by socialized speech
(VG) - Egocentric speech is not first: it gives voice to internalized "social" or "inner"
speech. Egocentric speech doesn't wither; it evolves upwards into inner speech
(PG) - Three key observations about egocentric speech
? It is audible and not whispered
? It occurs when a child thinks the others understand his egocentric
talk
? It occurs when children act together on a task, not alone
(VG)- His experiments seriously challenged Piaget's three key observations about
egocentric speech
In Thought and Language, Vygotsky (1962) analyzed Piaget's work. Vygotsky believed that
Piaget had developed a clinical method that revolutionized the study of children's
language and thought. However, Vygotsky also asserted that there were some flaws in
Piaget's methods. Piaget combined psychology and philosophy even though he tried to avoid
theorizing. He overlooked the role of the child's activity with relation to thought
processes. Vygotsky also disagreed with Piaget's assumption that development could not be
impeded or accelerated through instruction. In summary, Vygotsky was critical of Piaget's
assumption that developmental growth was independent of experience and based on a
universal characteristic of stages. Vygotsky believed that intellectual development was
continually evolving without an end point and not completed in stages as Piaget
theorized. Although Vygotsky was critical of Piaget, he realized the importance of the
information that Piaget gathered. In spite of his criticisms, Vygotsky built his
educational theories on the strengths of Piaget's.

Vygotsky's claims have been largely confirmed experimentally:

http://www.aare.edu.au/08pap/ada08077.pdf
http://www.lookstein.org/heterogeneo...du_complex.htm

[Wilder]

Another silly post.

All humans are animals, but not all animals are humans (sadly, if all Bs are As, not all As are Bs). Most of all, humans are not just animals, but cultural animals.

What distinguishes humans from other animals, in their cephalization index, and their unique ability to have a culture. A culture which acts as a mediator between them and the environement instead of their body. Do you hunt with your hands, or buy food (by using those little cartaceous things called banknotes)?

By very admission of the writer of the book, pirahans have a very, very limited use of culture (making artifacts, predicting behaviour, meta-regulating their behaviour based on such predictions -> in other words they do not seem to have meta-cognition in a sensible form, meta-cognition which according to Vygotskij and other contextualists is the root of interiorization of cultural and social constructs and the formation of mental schemes). They can be seen, with this regard, as an intermediate stage, more pertaining to the general category animal, than the specific subcategory human (cultural animal).

I could stand a healthy dose of no more nonsense in my diet instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition





http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/met...tion/start.htm

Four things:

1. Just because we have a culture, or metacognition does not make us need the supernatural any more than animals.

2. Animals DO have cultures, your ignorance is on display.

3. The Pirahã have fully developed culture. It is not yours, but dismissing them as uncultured is the same fallacious attitude taken by missionaries the world over.

4. and most importantly, you are distracting from the core of your original argument which is that the missionary can be dismissed because he was somehow taken in by "nostalgia". Which is patently wrong, and for that matter patronizing.

[Ummon]

Animals do have a culture exactly as I have a tail, only, theirs is embryonic and not vestigial. Lost in your nitpicking you occupy this thread with your ill-assimilated cultural relativism to my absolute indifference. The very Sapir-Whorf thesis cultural relativism was largely based upon contradicts your assertion.

Inanity is never an excuse, in an argument, and hardly a refutation or a victory.

[Wilder]

Animals do have a culture exactly as I have a tail, only, theirs is embryonic and not vestigial. Lost in your nitpicking you occupy this thread with your ill-assimilated cultural relativism to my absolute indifference. The very Sapir-Whorf thesis cultural relativism was largely based upon contradicts your assertion.

Inanity is never an excuse, in an argument, and hardly a refutation or a victory.

I'm not a cultural relativist, at all, I just think you are looking for excuses to dismiss the Pirahã as sub human, so you don't have to deal with the seemingly self evident fact that they are wiser than you or anyone else that believes in some man-god.

You are still not adressing the base of the matter.

[Ummon]

If you don't want classifications, do not look for knowledge, because knowledge is all about categories. Meaning, as well.

Given that there is no matter and no base, obviously I am not addressing it. We can all go back to killing children without parents and speak with a tongue with three tenses only, if you wish. The difference between the happiness of a man and that of an animal remains that the man is happy and he knows it. Oneness with existence is not about forgetting the mind, but about putting it into place. The missionary there is merely a sad regressionist, but I wish him to find the happiness he seeks of course. I won't become blind just because he can't use his eyes: instead I will remember to shut mine when the time for meditation comes.

[Wilder]

If you don't want classifications, do not look for knowledge, because knowledge is all about categories. Meaning, as well.

An arcane comment, but whatever, I'll accept it. Now what does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

Given that there is no matter and no base, obviously I am not addressing it.

Yes, the base issue here is your assertion that because the Pirahãs are more primitive they have no legitimate claim in the discussion on god, and that missionary dude is not thinking, but rather taken in by nostalgia.

We can all go back to killing children without parents and speak with a tongue with three tenses only, if you wish.

Again, price of tea in china? Barbarism is bad, but that does not mean men need man-gods.

The difference between the happiness of a man and that of an animal remains that the man is happy and he knows it.

You provide many arbitrary definitions to suite your arguments, and proclaim them as fact. Very tiresome. Allow me to refine this: The ONLY legitimate definition of species, including that of humans is, biological. I accept no other. Furthermore I imagine that if the Pirahãs are happy, they know they are.

Oneness with existence is not about forgetting the mind, but about putting it into place. The missionary there is merely a sad regressionist, but I wish him to find the happiness he seeks of course. I won't become blind just because he can't use his eyes: instead I will remember to shut mine when the time for meditation comes

Uh, no, the "putting the mind in it's place" is a excuse used by people of various religious denominations to refuse to deal with reality, and is ultimately detrimental to both enlightenment (a vague and generally stupid term) and to the human experience and condition.

If the missionary was a "regressionist" he would be eating raw meat, and hunting with rocks, but he isn't. He simply does not believe in the gods that do no exist, and that is not regress, that is progress. Putting aside the simple nature of Pirahãs society, they have an attitude on life that is clear eyed and honest, which is much more than I can say for most of the civilized folks.

And just because you call someone blind does not make them so.

[Ummon]

An arcane comment, but whatever, I'll accept it. Now what does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

Everything. The inability to see the obvious is funny. Price: category. Tea: category.

Yes, the base issue here is your assertion that because the Pirahãs are more primitive they have no legitimate claim in the discussion on god, and that missionary dude is not thinking, but rather taken in by nostalgia.

Would anyone who really believes in love, self-sacrifice and in the religion he preaches, be converted by people who cannot even bring help to their own children? Come on, I am sure you must have more important things to do, somewhere.

Again, price of tea in china? Barbarism is bad, but that does not mean men need man-gods.

You didn't pay attention to what I said. But you didn't pay attention to what you said as well, so this isn't surprising.

You provide many arbitrary definitions to suite your arguments, and proclaim them as fact. Very tiresome. Allow me to refine this: The ONLY legitimate definition of species, including that of humans is, biological. I accept no other. Furthermore I imagine that if the Pirahãs are happy, they know they are.

"I accept no other". Were you saying subjective?

Uh, no, the "putting the mind in it's place" is a excuse used by people of various religious denominations to refuse to deal with reality, and is ultimately detrimental to both enlightenment (a vague and generally stupid term) and to the human experience and condition.

Sure. Provided you accept it, it must be true.

If the missionary was a "regressionist" he would be eating raw meat, and hunting with rocks, but he isn't. He simply does not believe in the gods that do no exist, and that is not regress, that is progress. Putting aside the simple nature of Pirahãs society, they have an attitude on life that is clear eyed and honest, which is much more than I can say for most of the civilized folks.

And just because you call someone blind does not make them so.

I don't know about you, but I find your opinionated and meaningless arguments a source of amusement. Still, your posts are all silly. It is obvious that you are beyond reach in your circular reasoning, but dignity would suggest to leave the thread be. It is not like it has been anyway interrupted, you see. You can keep the anthropological curiosity up as you wish: just do not pretend to be reasoning about it properly.

[Exarch]

this is awesome news

for the christians, it must be as though their priests on the M2:TW map just went heretic/rebel