[/quote]

Please quote him, if you could. I am familiar with his ideas about tribal social organization from his book "Beyond Civilization," I am not familiar with his claims about tribes being "in opposition" to others. I can think of nothing he has said which reflects the idea that "give support - get support" systems should or must be be in opposition to other groups.

I think you might be thinking Quinn is saying things he actually is not saying. That's why I'm asking you to quote him, so I will be able to see your point of view about his writing.

I do not agree with a lot of what Quinn says, but I think I am reasonably familiar with his work, having read a number of his books, his website, met him in person, and been involved in an online conversation with him. So I am interested to find out about aspects of his work with which I am not familiar.

No, you called me a liar and accused me of bearing false witness about Quinn simply because I pointed out some of the things which I am uncomfortable with in the movement formed around him and in his theories. In my opinion your anger with that was a bit extreme, in that it seems to me that you have a need to somehow idealize this person and his ideas to an extent which I would generally view as dangerous.

Even though I like Kant's philosophy as well as the way in which he lived his life, I do not feel personally hurt or angry when people attack it or raise suspicions about Kant's intentions and life.

This is the whole point. He minimizes the in-group/out-group problem and the fact that tribes are far from being simple support systems. Their dynamics is much more complex and involves abundant psychopathology, including power politics, scapegoating, totems, taboos etc as revealed by extensive anthropological studies. Tribes are similar to extended families. Human group dynamics was studied extensively by social psychologists and tribes are very much subject to it, something which Quinn tends to idealize.

Ok, good for you.

So we're not even. That's ok, you can keep a chip on your shoulder against me if you want.

In this case I do believe that your reaction was a bit extreme.

Don't worry, I can live with that.

But you're not addressing what Quinn means by the word "tribe." He means something specific, he means "give support - get support." That's what he means by the word and what he has very carefully explained that he means.

I think you have a valid criticism, but I would be more persuaded if you were actually talking about something Quinn has actually said rather than something you think he should have said but didn't.


I have not seen him idealize existing tribes, quite the contrary, he says many have unpleasant characteristics, but these characteristics aren't as lethal to the culture and other cultures as the unpleasant characteristics of civiization.

Yes, I often have extreme reactions. Have you not seen them before?

I am embarrassed by my passion about some subjects.

Well, that's simply not what a tribe is or how it works in practice. Tightly knit groups of people aren't just idealized mutual support systems, unless their members are saints spending half of the day in meditation about their own sins.



Well, many the problems I have are with his one-sidedness. He is quiet on a lot of issues which a balanced treatment ought to address. I can see why he needs to be quiet on that, in my opinion his theory relies on ignoring certain uncomfortable facts about group dynamics.



There are many more things to say about these "unpleasant traits". One of the issues is that tribes aren't known for being good neighbors to each other (due to the in-group/out-group problem), which is why the tribal system tends to work "as advertised" only when tribes are relatively isolated. As soon as they get close, they either start fighting or they form superstructures (federations etc) which tend to develop into something akin to what Quinn calls "civilization". This brings forth all the problems associated with such large scale structures.

You are obviously in serious denial btu2012. This civilization is a lost cause. All the conucopians in the world are not going save this monster they created and it won't be for a lack of trying. Written between the lines of every PO article here is Daniel Quinn. He is but a mere man who just happens to "get it." Your trolling here is nothing more than trying to kill the messenger. Assassinating his character proves nothing. Not one damn thing. If a Western Roman collapse leads to the human race going extinct then we deserve it. Such is the price we pay for breaking the true Laws of Nature while that bible crap is still laughable at how petty it is. People who understand this book may stand a shot at living while others like yourself can deal with Gaia when she comes to your door to collect.

Novus, take a look at your motives before attacking others:



Quite hateful to wish people like me dead, isn't it ?

For your information, I agree with you that our civilization is doomed in its present form. What I disagree with is the belief that all civilizations are "evil" and destructive.

I think that it is quite possible to have a civilization which is simply not of that type.

I would also be pleased to have as few humans die unnecessarily as possible. But that's my understanding of ethics.

By the way, why do you have such a strong need to defend Quinn's personality and ideas ? What is he to you ?



OK, thanks for letting me know that he hasn't been canonized yet.

Who is claiming all civilizations are "evil" and destructive? Not me, not Quinn. He clearly describes how our particular civilization is destructive, but not "evil." Other civilization he mentions how they were not destructive in the way ours is.


On the other hand, Quinn never claims tribes are "saints." He describes some tribes as being "insane" and how it would be an insane world if we all lived like that. He discusses how the tribal structure (as opposed to our civilization) avoids making the entire world insane.


I would ask you to please post how you would see or promote a change to a non-destructive civilization, but I'm worried you'll feel I'm "ordering" you to post, when I'm really just asking you to please contribute your thoughts in a helpful way, to help us solve this problem we face.

Both you and Daniel Quinn seem to want the same thing - for humans to avoid extinction and for people to live in a way which is healthy, not destructive. He has done what he can by being an author (which makes some people think he is a narcissist, I guess). What I'm asking is, what are you doing, or what can you do, btu, besides criticism of other people's efforts? Can you contribute something positive in the way of helpful ideas or information? Would it be wrong of me to ask for you to please help?

May I ask you what our civilization is about, and when it got started ? I'd like to have your personal opinion.



I didn't claim that he does. I claimed that a tribe would have to be made of saints in order to avoid the realities of group dynamics.



In my opinion that's not clear at all. Global human population was small during prehistory. It is not obvious that tribal organization could avoid "insanity" for any value of the global population bigger than a certain threshold (which one could estimate using the tribal limit and ecological footprints etc).



The indications about that come from the fact that he doesn't categorically discourage the groupie phenomenon. Maybe my standards are very high, but I absolutely suspect anyone who accepts to be invested with any trace of "Guruship", and who doesn't positively and categorically discourage that. Simply writing books isn't an issue.



I think that's way too vast to address in this thread (which is about Quinn's ideas rather than mine). In any case I would strongly caution against radical social experiments while confronting a massive global crisis. The main task in any reasonable plan is to avoid war and social catastrophe, and that is extraordinarily complex.

Le me just mention my belief that a major aspect is to avoid divisive radicalism and ideological approaches to a problem of this magnitude.

I had a premonition about this thread before even looking at it. I was correct.

FYI: I’ve never heard about “Ishmael”.

No further comment.

Have a nice day.

That is why I asked you previously to please start a thread about these ideas that are important to you.




Man.

I give up.

<<<giving up now.

Bye.

btu, you may have mentioned it earlier, but what part of Quinn's work have you read?

I haven't read any, so I have no feeling one way or the other, but I just want to know what has informed your views on him.

You seem to REALLY dislike him. Like a LOT. There are plenty of writers and thinkers that I don't care for, but I am usually sort of indifferent about them.

The sense I get from you is that he might have stolen your girlfriend or maybe vandalized your car.