Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA13740 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 26 May 2000 15:22:16 +0100 Message-ID: <392E41C9.AF66F274@mediaone.net> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:20:10 +0100 From: chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival" References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745878@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
An additional thought about seppuku:
Is seppuku really just a special case of murder? The person has behaved in such
a way that he is no longer of any value to anyone because mere association would
be detrimental. That in itself is a form of murder because it takes away the
ability to participate in and create alliances -- which is essential to human
survival because we are a social species. It is possibly extreme in Japanese
society because there is no way to defect. The person is allowed to committ
suicide as his last social act. Why don't they just murder him? Perhaps a
compromise, a way to avoid the implications of murder of one's own.
In any event, I don't think it's fruitful to include seppuku in the general
category of suicide. It looks much more like murder done in a suicidal way!
Durkheim recognizes the difference between anomic (which is what we are talking
about mostly) and ???? (forget the name) suicide.
Vincent Campbell wrote:
> Thanks for these comments Chuck.
>
> The suicide question, in whatever context, is about how such behaviour
> persists when, for the individual at least, it doesn't seem like very good
> adaptive behaviour, and more widely how does it become a group behaviour
> (i.e. cultural behaviour) such as seppuku (the reasons for its position in
> Japanese society we'd agree on, the problem then is the causal factors which
> undoubtedly are inordinantly complicated).
>
> Robert Wright in his 'The Moral Animal', which is a very good book about
> evolutionary psychology/sociobiology, includes suicide in his appendices as
> a problem behaviour to explain simply in terms of adaptive advantage,
> particularly in modern societies. That's perhaps why I keep going on about
> it.
> [If you don't know the book, it isn't a diatribe against sociobiology, far
> from it, but it does stop short of the position you seem to be in].
>
> The point about behavioural differences that 'make no difference', one could
> argue, is precisely the kind of thing memetics aims to investigate. If it
> makes no difference then how does that behaviour persist?
>
> It's partly a feature of that old question- what is important? Is it
> important to ask questions about why left-right writing, or annoying tunes,
> persist? I get the clear impression that you don't think such things are
> essentially important in the grand scheme of things, well, fair enough.
>
> Vincent
>
> > ----------
> > From: chuck
> > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 1:57 pm
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival"
> >
> >
> >
> > Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, Chuck you've misunderstood me there over aberration. I meant it
> > in
> > > the sense that you described suicide cults as failures because the
> > behaviour
> > > will end with those that do it.
> >
> > As I understand you now you are trying to compare the behavior of suicide
> > by
> > itself without regard to context, and that is why you can suggest a
> > fruitful
> > comparision between a Jim Jones cult and seppuku. It is not a fruitful
> > comparison for most purposes because there is a huge difference between a
> > practice that ends an entire group and another that affects only some
> > individuals who do not follow certain standards. One cannot endure, the
> > other
> > can remain a functioning social form.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I also do understand the social context of seppuku which is directly
> > related
> > > to questions of honour, status and loyalty (when Hirohito died a few
> > years
> > > ago, they had terrible trouble in Japan trying to stop lots of war
> > veterans
> > > committing seppuku).
> > >
> > > What is interesting to me, is that the way you describe Japanese society
> > > could apply to most feudal societies so why did Japan develop a system
> > of
> > > honour-related ritual suicide, when others, where honour has also always
> > > been very important (e.g. the entire notion of chivalry), did not? Or
> > > rather, not 'why', but what was the catalyst for this particular
> > behaviour
> > > to spread in Japanese society, but not in others?
> >
> > You are correct in that I am describing only societies that have a strong
> > sense
> > of honor. I can't go any further because I don't know enough about
> > Japanese
> > history. I would have to do a fine grain analysis of various feudal
> > societies -
> > of which I know very little. But if I were interested, I would think the
> > research a good bet because there has to be a strong reason for such a
> > drastic
> > measure. I would think that it might have something to do with being an
> > unusually racially homogenous population situated on a large island. I
> > can't
> > think of another society with quite those conditions. And now that I am
> > thinking
> > of it, such a racial ecology would make defection to another group in the
> > event
> > of a mistake difficult or impossible. Remember that even today Japanese
> > think of
> > themselves much more than any other country of similar size as one big
> > family; I
> > hear that it is quite an intense sense of family. It's impossible, for
> > example,
> > to translate the word eccentric into Japanese without having extremely
> > negative
> > connotations because being different is considered such a strong statement
> > against the sense of family.
> >
> > I know that my pursuit of such precision on the social level -- that any
> > differences in practice can be understood as utilitarian within an
> > evolutionary
> > framework -- is rare. Most people working in the human behavior field
> > would
> > allow for the possibility of a lot more free variation than I. I can only
> > say
> > that by not assuming at the outset that there must be a lot of stuff that
> > is
> > subject to free variation, I can eventually come up with real connections
> > that
> > no one has ever been able to notice before. My discovery of the origin of
> > the
> > romantic era has proved to be quite solid (historians and other
> > professionals
> > find it quite convincing), yet people automatically for years assumed it
> > was
> > just a natural progression from non-romantic to romantic. But of course if
> > it
> > was so natural, we would not have seen the decades long decline in the
> > emotional
> > intensity of romantic love.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > What do you think of the right-left, left-right writing question?
> > >
> >
> > I can only say it doesn't attract my attention. There are behavioral
> > differences
> > that make no difference. Suicide DOES make a difference, but the direction
> > of
> > writing? But I may be wrong. Perhaps when we know more about how writing
> > is
> > processed in the brain, we might find certain characteristic differences
> > in the
> > language that made it seem more natural to go in one direction? But, like
> > I
> > said, I think there are other more important and interesting problems to
> > be
> > examined -- one of them being how to figure out how to investigate the
> > effect of
> > the media on the public in a relatively inexpensive way. If you could make
> > progress on that, you might win a Nobel prize for (what?). If you really
> > want
> > to figure that one out, the first condition is staying away from 20th
> > century
> > "Marxist" writing! :)
> >
> > >
> > > Vincent
> > > > ----------
> > > > From: chuck
> > > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 1:57 pm
> > > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > seppuku
> > > >
> > > > Vincent Campbell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Isn't that what Chuck is arguing though, that sociobiology offers a
> > > > simple
> > > > > answer to such questions by evaluating all behaviours in terms of
> > > > genetic
> > > > > advantage/utility in particular environmental contexts?
> > > >
> > > > I am not arguing that it is a simple answer; I am arguing that it is
> > as
> > > > simple
> > > > as basic evolutionary theory -- which in practice is quite complex.
> > > >
> > > > > My precise point is that things like seppuku can't be simply
> > explained
> > > > by
> > > > > sociobiology, indeed if at all, other than as an abberation,
> > > >
> > > > "Abberation"? Have you looked closely at it? Do you understand
> > Japanese
> > > > society
> > > > at all? I sort of doubt it. I suspect it seems an aberration to you
> > > > because it
> > > > certainly would be in any western society.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know a lot about seppuku, but it seems to have something to do
> > > > with
> > > > saving the reputation. One reason, for example, was to atone for
> > failure
> > > > to
> > > > carry out duties - which might include losing a battle. There is
> > > > absolutely
> > > > nothing difficult to understand about it. The fundamental difference
> > > > between
> > > > many oriental societies and most Western societies is the importance
> > of
> > > > reputation. Because each extended family in the former tend to remain
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > same geographical space for centuries, reputation is a very valuable
> > > > commodity
> > > > because it is a highly accurate measure of trustworthiness. Soiling
> > that
> > > > reputation causes terrible consequences for a lot of people, and
> > suicide
> > > > is a
> > > > way of cleansing the family of the wrongful act. If an individual
> > samurai
> > > > did
> > > > it, (I am not sure if they had extended families since I think they
> > were
> > > > mercenaries) it was probably because he had lost his most precious
> > > > commodity,
> > > > his reputation; that is, no one could any longer trust him. That's my
> > > > guess, but
> > > > knowing what I know generally about the lengths to which honor is
> > defended
> > > > in
> > > > other societies that depend highly on reputation, I think it's a good
> > bet.
> > > > In
> > > > any of those societies, a stain against your honor will seriously
> > hamper
> > > > you the
> > > > rest of your life. It's not so aberrant as the ceremonial elaboration
> > > > might
> > > > suggest.
> > > >
> > > > To repeat: understanding the utility of an act is not necessarily
> > simple.
> > > > I had
> > > > to do a lot of work over several years with how different types of
> > > > societies
> > > > establish trust. The principle is simple, but the details can be
> > quite
> > > > complex.
> > > >
> > > > > mistake or
> > > > > failure, which is no more satisfactory than Marx's dismissal of
> > 'happy'
> > > > > workers as false consciousness.
> > > > >
> > > > > One can consider more curious and subtle cultural variences than
> > > > suicide,
> > > > > celibacy or human sacrifice, such as the ways one reads different
> > kinds
> > > > of
> > > > > writing (e.g. left to right versus right to left). How did these
> > > > apparently
> > > > > arbitrary systems of writing spread over many different countries
> > and
> > > > > languages- where's the greater utility in left to right or right to
> > > > left?
> > > > >
> > > > > It is in this sense that I think something else is going on, on top
> > of
> > > > > natural selection not independent of it, influencing human
> > behaviour,
> > > > that
> > > > > requires investigation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vincent
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > From: Wade T.Smith
> > > > > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 2:30 pm
> > > > > > To: memetics list
> > > > > > Subject: RE: What is "useful"; what is "survival"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 05/24/00 06:49, Vincent Campbell said this-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >(The point about seppuku, was that this is a ritual behaviour
> > that
> > > > has
> > > > > > >persisted for many generations explicitly involving suicide- how
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > > > >explain it?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps with the same breath that explains Clinton's _not_
> > performing
> > > > > > such a ceremony in the face of precisely a situation in which the
> > > > > > nipponese culture would demand it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which is to say, there is no simple explanation for the strength
> > of a
> > > > > > culture or the directions is allows.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Wade
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ===============================================================
> > > > > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > > > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information
> > Transmission
> > > > > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g.
> > unsubscribing)
> > > > > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ===============================================================
> > > > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information
> > Transmission
> > > > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ===============================================================
> > > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > > >
> > >
> > > ===============================================================
> > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> >
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 26 2000 - 15:22:52 BST