Savage v Civilized

[Kyriakos]

Is this a semantic thing? Like how you are defining savage? Perhaps the scale of what you mean is too different to compare but for example the civilized mentality could be “we will wait for the officials” and the savage mentality could be “let’s not wait for this is possible with us”, which would be a greater awareness of the agents and their possibilities. I don’t agree that a more active will to power or willingness to risk precludes a deeper self awareness than not engaging what you are with where you are. So how do you mean?

My impression is that, in general (ie not on all cases) a more pro-active person is less introspective. Easier to observe when nearing an extreme (as with all things of such a nature), cause ultra-introspection and introversion can lead to stasis.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

The difference between savagery and civilization is that civilization always wins. Every single time. That's how we know it was one looking back.

 

[MaryKB]

This is an interesting take because it runs absolutely opposite to my general impression. Might be an artifact of how we're interpreting "savage/civilized" or even "art," but to dig in just for funzies: much really good art seems to come from a place of "outsiderness." Which I think is pretty much leaning savagery for purposes of this discussion. Being an outsider is more dangerous and way less comfortable than being safely ensconced where everyone expects you to be. "Rent" the play loses much of it's poignancy and meaning without the context of brutal shunning unto death by society. Starry Night was not painted by a respected man. Mother Theresa found the beauty in the pain and suffering of the cast off. Mark Twain's better observations come from the dregs, not the shining examples of society. A comfortable and well respected person may create a beautiful Tiffany lamp. But, generally, they're going to paint boring pictures and write boring books.

I'm more saying that living in civilization allows art to be created. You're not going to have time to paint or write compositions when you're struggling for your survival against the wilderness.

 

[Farm Boy]

Depends on the art? They seemed to have stupendous oral tradition, dance, and music. Good enough to literally move people?

 

[MaryKB]

Good enough to move people who didn't know any better

Seriously, there's no Cave Davinci

 

[Farm Boy]

<shrugs> I dunno. I think they're pretty moving. Then again, I'm impressed by arrowheads.

 

[civvver]

I dunno, sounds like one of those studies where they analyze how much free time tribes living in the amazon have vs a modern professional working a job with weekends off and somehow conclude the tribesperson is happier. Or one of those studies where they conclude that happiness peaks at 75k a year salary. Happiness is fleeting, joy is what you make of it. I think it's simply that 1st world nations have gotten to a point where most of us don't have to work that hard to survive and live very comfortably so we're left to contemplate our lot in life and explore our mental issues.

 

[bernie14]

USA #1 has already achieved perfect success thanks to the 2nd amendment.
When I roll out the door and dash to my car in a zig-zag pattern, I always thank the founding fathers for making sure my country will never be dull from day 1.

https://tanktownusa.com/

3:22

Reminds me of this jerk

 

[Farm Boy]

Isn't that where it enters the realm of the science fiction question, Civver? "What is it to be human?"

I think there was a bunch of contemplation of our lots in life from the ancients. You get a lot, a lot, of time to think when you're weaving. Or weeding. Or walking. Or shut in during winter tending a fire and chopping wood. Or any number of tedious/masterful tasks. If anything, I'd say were far more distracted from our thoughts now. Which very well might be utterly necessary, particularly if we aren't doing anything that we honestly consider to be of import. What are the things we do, or don't do, that make us feel happy, healthy, grounded, and meaningful? What is a purposeful human life?

 

[H4run]

The difference between savagery and civilization is that civilization always wins. Every single time. That's how we know it was one looking back.

Not between the Mongol and the Chinese (includes Abbassid), or arguably Roman to the Greek, etc, there was lots of historical example where civilized agrarian civilization get take-over by "the uncivilized" nomad or less civilized nation, who in turn adopted the agrarian custom and culture or even religion.

 

[Farm Boy]

I thought that was the joke. Whoever wins gets the label and whoever loses gets the other label. Because lets be real, they're already murdering people and taking their stuff, why would anything they say have any value other than "I'm Da Greatestest!!"

The "civilized" are certainly more brutal and more deserving of rotting in an eternal hell than "the backwards" often enough.

 

[Hygro]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/us/girl-down-syndrome-police-gun-trnd/index.html

Actions of adults lacking a savage mind.

 

[Farm Boy]

What a bunch of dopes.

 

[Berzerker]

I hate "roughing it" in any way, I do not like to struggle or to sweat.

Studies show sweat - eg saunas used in Scandinavian countries - is good for health. It cleanses the body but you do need to replenish certain minerals if done too much. So I built a small enclosure with heat lamps (like what they use to keep chicks warm) for the winter months. I sweat enough on the golf course during the warmer season.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm more saying that living in civilization allows art to be created. You're not going to have time to paint or write compositions when you're struggling for your survival against the wilderness.

Consider that art long predates civilization in the archaeological record. For example the oldest cave paintings are between 40,000 and 50,000 years old.

 

[Truthy]

There was a mouthwash post a while back linking to the alleged happiness of the Comanches that was a wake up call. In my mind it’s the opposite of the process of our civilization of which much is basically call the pornification of everything in place of doing it ourselves.

Yes, I think there's a fair amount of evolutionary mismatch between the "savagery" of the ancestral environment and domestication.

There's an angle to this that I'm not sure how to explicate exactly, which is to look at human happiness as it relates to pursuing goals. The gist of it is the cliche "it's the journey, not the destination." But there's truth to that. Dopamine is commonly said to be the "pleasure chemical", but actually the going interpretation of it these days is that it's the "goal-seeking chemical" or the "motivational salience chemical." The impact is that to a pretty big extent, contentment itself is about making progress towards goals.

But back savagery - it seems a lot of our neural circuitry and endocrine system are innately set up to prefer pursuing goals that are directly linked to exploration, personal risk, reproduction, socializing, and accruing status in small-ish groups. For one reason or another, most of these goals we love to pursue are either lower stakes or more abstract in the modern world and that's where I think the mismatch kicks in. I'll admit this is just a science-y sounding way of saying "I think a lot of people innately like roaming around, want a sprinkling of danger, and love earning respect/status in their squads." But I'd bet it's true and neuroscience/evo psyche could fill in the gaps fairly well.

On the Comanche and on status games: status-seeking games have always been essential to the human experience and are, unsurprisingly, super dopaminergic. As a species, we're all crack addicts on this front. But everyone here is probably already convinced that things like internet status games are pretty bizarre and dopaminergically screwy compared to, say, Comanche tribal status games. Which principally involved accumulating horses, mates, and glory in battle (covered in Empire of the Summer Moon--which I assume is the book that inspired Mouthwash's Comanche comments). Many of us crave this kind of thing and we hear its echoes throughout our culture. See the bromance + respect + loyalty games they play in Master and Commander as they pursue the French. Or the ball-busting + respect + loyalty games they play in Goodfellas as they screw over "goody-goody suckers." It's the fun of being part of a dangerous, tight-knit squad where something material is actually at stake and you have to vie for respect and loyalty. But it's hard to come across in the modern world.

The last paragraph is gendered. But that's an angle that's been latent to this thread the whole time, by my read. And maybe worth dissecting.

 

[Zkribbler]

When I roll out the door and dash to my car in a zig-zag pattern, I always thank the founding fathers for making sure my country will never be dull from day 1.

That wasn't the Founding Fathers. They passed the 2nd Amendment to assure southern states could raise militias to put down slave rebellions. It was the Supreme Court who rewrote it to say any nutjob could blast away with an AK-47, our schoolchildrens' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be damned.

 

[luiz]

Not between the Mongol and the Chinese (includes Abbassid), or arguably Roman to the Greek, etc, there was lots of historical example where civilized agrarian civilization get take-over by "the uncivilized" nomad or less civilized nation, who in turn adopted the agrarian custom and culture or even religion.

But the interesting thing here is that while the "civilized" party didn't always win in the fight with a nomadic adversary, "civilization" always beat nomadism (in the sense that the nomads themselves, after beating a sedentary empire, become sedentary and "civilized" themselves).

Which of course does not mean one is better than the other, but sure means one is more powerful as a concept.

 

[H4run]

But the interesting thing here is that while the "civilized" party didn't always win in the fight with a nomadic adversary, "civilization" always beat nomadism (in the sense that the nomads themselves, after beating a sedentary empire, become sedentary and "civilized" themselves).

Which of course does not mean one is better than the other, but sure means one is more powerful as a concept.

Interesting if you put it that way, but I may say that powerful here also can be quite relative, powerful in what sense? It has a dialectic relation in accordance to what, when and how it is defined as powerful, the answer maybe different.

 

[Berzerker]

Consider that art long predates civilization in the archaeological record. For example the oldest cave paintings are between 40,000 and 50,000 years old.

immediately followed by the first art critic