Skip to content

THE PROS AND CONS OF CONCEPTUAL MODELS (1)

February 16, 2013

AND THEIR ESSENTIAL DEFICIENCY

And I shall now compare the conceptual model that I employ, just simply as a working hypothesis of sorts, to get closer to a deeper understanding of man, with little regard for the empirical validity of that model in terms of fossils or tissue samples.

And you may say that in this is precisely its limitations; but I would respond by asking how do you account, then, for the most rational and most coherent vision that, through my texts, it is clear I possess with regards to the individual, society and culture itself; coherence that clearly puts me beyond the limits of Establishment Science and its obstructive and false division between the natural and human fields of scientific discipline?

And an example of what I point to is in the theoretical use I make of human cannibalism as the basis for this model of sorts that has effectively allowed me to unite in a theoretical continuum Darwinism, the psyche of the individual, agriculture as the foundation of culture as we know it today, Religion, and historical cultural evolution up to the present.

Although I do not have at my disposal the most powerful resources of scientific analysis, I do draw on the empirical data produced by establishment Science and that it is accessible, basically, to all once it has been published.

But it is exactly because I do not belong to Establishment Science that I am free to include in my inferences elements from other fields like psychology, and particularly from the psychological stratum of human myth in its cultural manifestation in the form of texts and images, pictorial or mental.

And it is because of this broader vision of human psychology and its projection as human groups or societies, that I include, for example, in my vision of human evolution man’s rationality, which is implicitly ignored altogether in Establishment Science’s contemporary vision of human biological history.

Man can survive by cannibalizing his offspring, other members of his clan, or individuals from other human groups because he simply can make the decision to do it, unlike any other living organism on this planet.

What dog, chimpanzee or other mammal can roughly calculate the survival of most of the group he belongs to by sacrificing the lives a few individuals?

And how could you see yourself, in all your worry and strife for making ends meet and providing for your children today in the context of consumer society, not being able to determine the number and the specific individuals you and yours will have to ingest, on the plains of the Paleolithic, to prolong life as a group for a significant amount of time into the future?

All you have to do, really, is imagine yourself outside of the restraints of agriculturally based human culture that you, fortunately, are a product of.

And as a next inference, how can you not see the connection this makes with human sacrifice, simulated human sacrifice and the ritual killing of animals, always as a necessary sacrifice so that others may live?

And that this is the substratum-in one way or another- of probably all post agriculture religions that have ever existed, and it is, evidently, the psychological-anthropological grounding of the “lamb of God” that is the figure of Jesus Christ himself.

Whom-by they way-you also ingest as a believer!

But you gotta be real hungry to do that, baby!

And its about time you had a better understanding of what really is the hunger of man, after all!

Advertisements
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s