To: Neocon who wrote (78663 ) 4/22/2000 3:38:00 PM From: epicure Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Although social cohesion is important, most animals have it without art, literature, and the herd instinct is not "bred" out- we can see it everywhere- especially in groups (usually religious) who choose to live together and isolate their "herd". Be it enclaves of orthodox Jews, or enclaves in Bosnia, these are examples of herd mentality. Competing against that mentality is the opposite extreme of liberality and acceptance that can be seen in other places. Most people fall between the two extremes- and have both herd and liberal tendencies- I say this only because that is what I've seen- if you've seen something different feel free to point that out. We conquer what is valuable, and worth the effort of conquering (at least I think this is a possible conclusion). Knowledge is ONE thing that has always been considered of value. As is beauty. These are things successful hominids seem to want to possess- so I would guess they are adaptive. Studies certainly show being beautiful in your person (for example) is adaptive. Being intelligent probably has similar advantages. By conquering a knowledgeable people you essentially conquer their thinking- you get their libraries, you get to enslave their teachers to teach your children, you get their architects and their scientists, their artists, and doctors- etc- it's a very quick shortcut to knowledge. And I think there must be a dynamic tension between knowledge and strength. For example- the more philosophic and educated your population gets, I would think the WEAKER they would get. After all- they're spending their time in the library- not out drilling with weapons. And to top it all off- they are probably getting more tolerant, and possibly even relativistic- so their drive to fight people based on xenophobia may be too greatly diminished. So an invader- who is NOT wasting all his or her time in the library- finds this civilization easy pickings- and while they may realize the knowledge of the conquered civilization is valuable- do they realize it is also destructive? I doubt it. But I think the tension is there. I wouldn't want (for example) to be defended by an army of Socratic scholars, or even, people like ME. High status means resources. Resources are what all animals seek to acquire. Our resources as humans can be somewhat abstract- but there are studies that show they are valuable. I mentioned the studies on beauty- beautiful people in studies are judged as nicer and more intelligent than average people. That is a resource- you would expect a society to value it. Entertainment has always been a valuable commodity. A good storyteller was probably extremely important- especially when you consider history was oral for a long time- it wouldn't surprise me that a value for this should manifest itself as a general focus on entertainers. I wonder if this explains societies preoccupation with actors? I wonder if we are programmed to reward dramatics, because for so long that was our only link with the past- and ALL our learning? After all it is our ability to remember so much data and pass it on generation to generation that has allowed us to succeed so well. Steven- what do you think? I'd never really thought about a reverence for actors, before, in quite this way before.
