“Technology isn’t what makes us “post-human” or “transhuman,” as some writers and scholars have recently suggested. It’s what makes us human. Technology is in our nature. Through our tools we give our dreams form. We bring them into the world. The practicality of technology may distinguish it from art, but both spring from a similar, distinctly human yearning.”-Nicholas Carr
The Purple Stage of Spiral dynamics represents the basis/model of "Chiefdom" 11/28/2018
Thus to understand first The Purple Stage,the beauty of it,and how it can be evolved,maintained,yet adapted to a much larger "tribe", this can only be achieved if groups of highly "Self-Actualized" people are leaders, my studies of governments historically show the form of governments with One Figure head/ commander in chief,prime minister,etc.dont work.
“[Patricia Greenfield] concluded that “every medium develops some cognitive skills at the expense of others.” Our growing use of the Net and other screen-based technologies has led to the “widespread and sophisticated development of visual-spatial skills.” We can, for example, rotate objects in our minds better than we used to be able to. But our “new strengths in visual-spatial intelligence” go hand in hand with a weakening of our capacities for the kind of “deep processing” that underpins “mindful knowledge acquisition, inductive analysis, critical thinking, imagination, and reflection.” -Nicholas Carr
The core basic "Idea",theme of writing is to look at " Humanity ", how we have as human's evolved from the small "Band" (group),then next to "Tribe", (my concept of Tribe), thus Beyond......to...........Where we are " NoW !"And it not so good-my opinion
Links concerning this "Topic" A Society
Gustave Le Bon was an early explorer of this phenomenon as a function of crowds. Le Bon introduced his crowd psychology theory in his 1895 publication The Crowd: A study of the Popular Mind. The French psychologist characterized his posited effect of crowd mentality, whereby individual personalities become dominated by the collective mindset of the crowd. Le Bon viewed crowd behavior as "unanimous, emotional, and intellectually weak". He theorized that a loss of personal responsibility in crowds leads to an inclination to behave primitively and hedonistically by the entire group. This resulting mentality, according to Le Bon, belongs more to the collective than any individual, so that individual traits are submerged. The idea of a "group mind" is comparable to the shared autism theory, which holds that individuals within a group may develop shared beliefs that have no basis in reality ("delusions"). Already, Le Bon was tending toward the conception of deindividuation as a state brought on by a lowering of accountability, resulting from a degree of anonymity due to membership within a crowd, where attention is shifted from the self to the more stimulating, external qualities of the group’s action (which may be extreme).
Patriotism and Unity
Forming a very Unique group or it could be called "Tribe"
Links of interest
Instead of tending towards a vast Alexandrian library the world has become a computer, an electronic brain, exactly as an infantile piece of science fiction. And as our senses have gone outside us, Big Brother goes inside. So, unless aware of this dynamic, we shall at once move into a phase of panic terrors, exactly befitting a small world of tribal drums, total interdependence, and superimposed co-existence. [...] Terror is the normal state of any oral society, for in it everything affects everything all the time. [...] In our long striving to recover for the Western world a unity of sensibility and of thought and feeling we have no more been prepared to accept the tribal consequences of such unity than we were ready for the fragmentation of the human psyche by print culture -Marshall McLuhan
Key to McLuhan's argument is the idea that technology has no per se moral bent—it is a tool that profoundly shapes an individual's and, by extension, a society's self-conception and realization:
Is it not obvious that there are always enough moral problems without also taking a moral stand on technological grounds? [...] Print is the extreme phase of alphabet culture that detribalizes or decollectivizes man in the first instance. Print raises the visual features of alphabet to highest intensity of definition. Thus print carries the individuating power of the phonetic alphabet much further than manuscript culture could ever do. Print is the technology of individualism. If men decided to modify this visual technology by an electric technology, individualism would also be modified. To raise a moral complaint about this is like cussing a buzz-saw for lopping off fingers. "But", someone says, "we didn't know it would happen." Yet even witlessness is not a moral issue. It is a problem, but not a moral problem; and it would be nice to clear away some of the moral fogs that surround our technologies. It would be good for morality.
The moral valence of technology's effects on cognition is, for McLuhan, a matter of perspective. For instance, McLuhan contrasts the considerable alarm and revulsion that the growing quantity of books aroused in the latter seventeenth century with the modern concern for the "end of the book". If there can be no universal moral sentence passed on technology, McLuhan believes that "there can only be disaster arising from unawareness of the causalities and effects inherent in our technologies".
Though the World Wide Web was invented almost thirty years after The Gutenberg Galaxy, and ten years after his death, McLuhan prophesied the web technology seen today as early as 1962:
The starting point for our enquiry into the sociological imagination is Walter Lippmann’s theory of the stereotype. This introduces us into thinking about perception and what influences and shapes this process—specifically how what we trust as an ‘authentic messenger’ can actually create what Lippmann called a ‘pseudo reality’. Below I will outline Lippmann’s theory, briefly mention Harold Lasswell’s work on social psychology that became the basis for understanding propaganda from the 1920s onwards and introduce C. Wright Mills’ idea of the Cultural Apparatus. I then go on to look at Henri Bergson’s work on the study of consciousness and perception—Phenomenology—and its influence on Cubism and avant-garde art of the 1900s. After explaining some of the terminology such as Noesis (Greek for to perceive) and Noema (Greek for what is thought about) I conclude with examples of how a phenomenological approach can help us understand art.
The theory of the stereotype
In the early twentieth-century, probably influenced by the invention of radio, people became fascinated with séances and mediums—to intrigue people and keep the fad going photographic evidence was produced of ‘ectoplasm’ (above) supposedly the stuff ghosts are made of. The séances and mediums were often exposed as frauds but people kept coming. Today we might find it unusual that people believed this: but what if this sort of deceptive illusion happens on a wider scale? How can we understand how it works—how has it been studied?
In 1938 Orson Welles’ radio dramatisation of H. G. Wells’ ‘War of the Worlds’ was taken so seriously by huge numbers of the US population that it reportedly caused mass hysteria. Of the estimated 6 million listeners 28% thought it was real. There is evidence that an expert on Psychological Warfare, Hadley Cantril, hired Welles in order to study the behavior of citizens under panic conditions. Cantril’s study of the psychology of panic ‘The Invasion from Mars’ found that a lack of critical ability seemed conducive to fear—people did nothing to check what the radio was saying because they trusted it as an ‘authentic messenger’ (Cantril, 1940).
Walter Lippmann’s (1922) Public Opinion begins with ‘The World outside and the Pictures in our heads,’ the chapter that introduced his conception of the ‘stereotype’. This explained how public opinion was formed and manipulated because of what we trust as an ‘authentic messenger’. Lippmann had worked with the CREEL Committee that influenced public opinion by censoring information that was anti-war and producing thousands of pro-war pamphlets, cartoons, magazines, and movies so that the USA could enter the World War in 1917 after stating it would not.
Lippmann tried to explain how the pictures that arise spontaneously in people’s minds come to be—a simplification of his theory is that we live in second-hand worlds. Because we are aware of much more than we have personally experienced our own experience is mainly indirect. Lippmann felt that the only feeling that anyone can have about an event, that they did not experience, is the feeling aroused by their mental image of that event.
The example he offered was the story of a girl who breaks into “a paroxysm of grief” when a gust of wind cracks a windowpane. Her actions are incomprehensible to others, but for her if a windowpane broke it meant that a close relative had died. The cracked glass was an authentic messenger to the girl, but she had: “hallucinated a complete fiction out of one external fact and a remembered superstition” (Lippmann, 1922: 4). He is saying that even although we can see the irrationality of it in others, we all engage in this process. Whatever it might be, we give our trust to what we have judged to be an authentic messenger—we give our assent to it. His line of thought is often thought of as psychological but it is more related to a phenomenological approach in my judgement.
When he looked at this process more generally Lippmann discovered the common factor was the insertion between humans and their environment of a pseudo-environment. Our behavior is a response to this pseudo-environment. But because it is behavior, the consequences, if they are acts, operate not in the pseudo-environment that stimulated the behavior, but in the real environment where action occurs as a result (Lippmann, 1922: 4). If I put this into diagrammatical form then the cyclical nature outlines a stereotyping process that underlies how our opinions are formed.
We can understand it a little better if we swap Orson Welles’ radio show for the pseudo-environment and see how the hysteria of those who took it seriously would be the behaviour response and perhaps someone being hurt might represent the consequences in reality. We can also put this alongside ancient thinkers ideas such as Zeno (writing in the 5th century BC) who offered one of the earliest explanations of how we perceive using an analogy:
Impressions—an open hand
Assent—a closed hand
Conviction—a clenched fist)
Knowledge—The other hand grasps the fist
Zeno influenced eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, George Berkeley and Étienne Condillac who began to believe that perception was the result of habit and not the immediate evidence of the senses. They felt too that memory was a library of former perceptions and that reflection (thinking) was an automatic comparison of these former perceptions. Therefore sensation, after being attention, comparison and judgement, then becomes reflection itself, with the mind far from picking its way to objective truth (Hampson, 1968: 113).
If we come back to Lippmann’s theory he uses the term fictions to mean the representations of the environment which to a lesser or greater extent we make ourselves—these extend all the way from complete hallucination to the scientist’s self-conscious use of a schematic model. The alternative to our everyday use of our fictions would be direct exposure to the ebb and flow of sensation—our hand would be forever open in Zeno’s sense. The real environment is too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct experience—but we have to give our assent to something. Thus, although we have to act in the environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can cope with it. This simpler model is the stereotype that we have become convinced of—like Zeno’s fist. Lippmann’s conception of a pseudo-environment is a hybrid compound of human nature and conditions.
the remainer of this can be read at https://culturalapparatus.wordpress.com/walter-lippmann-and-the-stereotype-the-world-outside-and-the-pictures-in-our-heads/
Links similar to what ,Beyond Chiefdom concerns
Simple ideas are not always easy to understand. The very simplest idea I've articulated in my work is probably the least understood: There is no one right way for people to live--never has been and never will be. This idea was at the foundation of tribal life everywhere. The Navajo never imagined that they had the right way to live (and that all others were wrong). All they had was a way that suited them. With tribal peoples on all sides of them--all living in different ways--it would have been ridiculous for them to imagine that theirs was the one right way for people to live. It would be like us imagining that there is one right way to orchestrate a Cole Porter song or one right way to make a bicycle.
In the tribal world, because there was complete agreement that no one had the right way to live, there was a staggering glory of cultural diversity, which the people of our culture have been tirelessly eradicating for 10,000 years. For us, it will be paradise when everyone on earth lives exactly the same way.
Almost no one blinks at the statement that there is no one right way for people to live. In one of his denunciations of scribes and pharisees, Jesus said, "You gag on the gnat but swallow down the camel." People find many gnats in my books to gag on, but this great hairy camel goes down as easily as a teaspoon of honey.
May the forests be with you and with your children. -Daniel Quinn
Excerpt from ; Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy
"Reverse Dominance Hierarchy and State Formation
I have made the case that egalitarian behavior arises from dislike of being dominated. At the individual level, this might be called "love of autonomy," but I have chosen to approach it in terms of group values (or ethos) and political coalition formation. Individual dislike of being dominated, reflected in the ethos and reinformed by it, is transformed by small communities into what amounts to social policy. I think it is accurate to call the result a "reverse dominance hierarchy" (Boehm 1984, 1991) because, rather than being dominated, the rank and file itself manages to dominate. So-called acephalous societies and even incipient chiefdoms have reverse dominance hierarchies. By contrast, authoritative chiefdoms, kingdoms, and primitive states are not committed to such egalitarian ideals (even though they recognize and deal with power abuse), and therefore they have dominance hierarchies that are "orthodox" in that they follow a pattern shared with our closest phylogenetic "cousins," the African great apes. Compared with both African great apes and other humans at the strongchiefdom level or higher, human groups committed to egalitarian behavior have gone in an opposite direction. They have done so because followers discovered that by forming a single political coalition they could decisively control the domination proclivities of highly assertive individuals, even their chosen leaders. This political direction was somehow reversed after the invention of agriculture, and an "orthodox" version of social dominance hierarchy reappeared. This argument is highly relevant to theories of state formation.
Initiatives and referendums in the United States -wikipedia