Re: Mysticism
Reply #31 –
Unfortunately I see no quality of argument/evidence anywhere from the the first word to the last one.
(Sorry to go this far back: But the site is, for me, too quiet… And you said something interesting here that I didn't notice at first.) While I'll admit that the style is turgid —quite typical in academic venues— it can be read with profit, if one has acquired the knack.
(You might say the same about European or Iberian Idealisms… No? )
First, you must understand that the author bemoans the influence of unsupportable biases, on the basis of ethnographical studies… The author is more an ethologist, taking his cues from animals of all sorts, not just humans; and interested in particular behaviors. (So, BTW, was Jaynes… But that's another argument!) And he reasons from Darwinian Fitness considerations to a rejection of the particular bias which posits "bands" as the primary organizational model of early human populations… Along the way, he shows why "bands" do come into existence and why they persist, citing historical examples. Then, he diverts us with a seemingly irrelevant discussion of a fairly common practice; and attempts to explain it in terms of ecological considerations — pertinent to the mode of social organization known as "bands". Finally, he ties it all up with an argument that he thinks is consistent with Darwinian Fitness, as a determinant factor in early human social evolution…that relegates "bands" -properly understood- as an adaptation to marginal circumstances, and certainly not a common one [if the growth of early human populations is to be explained].
I suspect you just didn't appreciate the "bands" posit -as the most likely organizational mode of early humanity- and its basis [perverse popularity among non-evolutionist anthropologists — essentially, sociologists pretending to be scientists]. In the author's defense, it's his field that is hijacked by this biased view…