Here are some fragmented, speculative thoughts (exams –> no time to edit): Evolutionary psychology, anthropology, etc. are useful value-sources. Any point in the past that is studied in depth reveals a system of thoughts; each individual has such a system, and each culture groups a constellation of systems — a set of points gathered together in similarity. Speculation concerning the structure of hunter-gatherer systems offers points of comparison against the one we naturally have — comparison, then refinement. Note: I refer not specifically to living cultures of hunter-gatherers, since they represent a biased sample (eg: marginal environments are disproportionately represented).
One reason for this is that hunter-gatherer systems devleoped in relation to a set of conditions/possibilities that has framed the greater part of our evolutionary history. Our set of conditions is very different, and we do have a culture that tries to adapt itself to it. But there is an issue: because the set of conditions/possibilities has been changing a lot, there has not been much time for the culture to establish a relationship with the necessary set of c/p, to make better use of it and guide us in this direction. Too much has changed and the culture can only keep up. After thousands of years of relative stability, a culture is relatively well-established. Biological evolution is interesting, but cultural evolution too.
A second reason is that a greater set of c/p requires more processing, leading us to spread out our processing power. This in turn causes us to have axioms which have not received as much refinement — they're too numerous for that. If, instead, we start with a well-refined and simple model, and build it up when the model is not enough, then we are in a much better position than if we start with a broad and crude model which will often mislead us.
It is possible to correlate the set of c/p a hunter-gatherer had with the ones we had today.I do this with food, for example. The grocery is a special micro-climate in the stone jungle — it contains an abundant supply and diversity of foods. Imagine the face of a hunter-gatherer that found himself in a city, roams around anxious about being in such a strange environment, and at a peak of discomfort finds himself in a grocery, two employees and no one else. He walks around and see the equivalent of the most densely diverse patch of nature he ever found. Roots that don't need to be dug out, fruits from every tree! I think that way about the market I go to. The oasis which requires 1 hour of travel back and forth (1 hour of work at minimum wage = 10$ = enough for a day's supply of food), so it's a very good deal compared, say, to what the !Kung of Nyae-Nyae had access to. What's poverty when you have that perspective?
Shelter: Hunter-gatherers have no qualms about sleeping outside and would judge a down sleeping bag, pad, and goretex bivy bag to be wonderful gifts of nature that make life even more comfortable.
Social: When it comes to people, it's better to treat every human as part of one's extended tribe, since sharing an environment with complete strangers is awkward for a hunter-gatherer. This done: what hunter-gatherer wouldn't feel joyful to have a tribe so large and powerful, to know that that there are friends around every corner of his environment (if only you treat them as such)?
This relates to the stability-refinement article: While we are subject to much instability and the culture itself is misadapted to the set of conditions/possibilities , as individuals we have the potential for better refined axioms today since we can look at the systems that past and faraway spirits have represented through books, and benefit from these. Likewise, population density allows us to tribe up with spirits towards whom there is affinity — friends are a rich source of influence. In both examples there is a continumm of diversity based on how much affinity of constitution, influence, and condition that we have with each spirit ( three axis thread). This is one clear example of the fruits of modernity. But isn't it interesting that both the long and fragmented records of our development and present experience offer us such wealth? Primitivism is the core, stable model to which we adapt ourselves. Technologism is the means by which we extend from that core and reach out beyond our primitive modes of perception.
There is a bit of the High Road principle in here, which is also mentioned in Stability-Refinement article.
Both paintings are by Ferdinand Hodler
—–sidenotes
.The refinement of axioms, Spinoza might say, allows us to refine our understanding and in turn increase our awareness of what we are embedded in — of what gives us the flesh. When this awareness is expanded beyond the flesh, the shell, and the limits of our senses, etc., we become aware of our mind's unity with God. ("God" has too many strong connotations, but it's a word I learned from Spinoza and have come to like.)
Recordings + population density –> greater set of possibilities; greater potential wealth of experience; lower average degree of adaptation to set of possiblities
In his Meditatations, Emperor Marcus Aurelius told himself (Book VI, Sect. 13; I prefer the Grube translation):
"How useful, when roasted meats and other foods are before you, to see them in your mind as here the dead body of a fish, there the dead body of a bird or a pig. Or again, to think of Falernian wine as the juice of a cluster of grapes, of a purple robe as sheep’s wool dyed with the blood of a shellfish, and of sexual intercourse as internal rubbing accompanied by a spasmodic ejection of mucus. What useful perceptual images these are! They go to the heart of things and pierce right through them, so that you see things for what they are. You must do this throughout life; when things appear to be too enticing, strip them naked, destroy the myth which makes them proud. For vanity is a dangerous perverter of Reason."
The desires that Aurelius refers to – for meat, for alcohol, for luxury clothes, and for sex – are often pursued in a crude, unthought way.These desires must be broken down into the raw perceptions that form these desires. This is the destruction of myth. This done, the perceptions can be rebuilt into richer myths. Then, they are not be desired for their own sake, but as a means to an end. There is beauty to be found in the eating of flesh one has hunted, killed, and nobly thanked for satisfying one's hunger. But what about paying factories to pump out a certain combination of taste and texture through some thoroughly cruel process? There is beauty to be found in alcohol that is consumed to harmonise and sensitise perceptions. But what about drinking to dull one's consciousness? There is beauty to be found in the wearing of visual stimuli which sets a mood to the mind and decorates a space. But what about seeking identity in pieces of fabrics designed by someone else? There is beauty to be found in bodies caught in a feedback of expression and reception pertaining to all the senses (multi-sense jamming). But what about spending one's time with a soul towards whom there is no affinity except the mutual desire to alleviate genital pressure? There are activities which distract, and others which feed.
Aurelius sometimes resisted his impulses as bad when he could have instead redirected them towards good. When the higher pleasures are teased out from the lower pleasures, they no longer take over the mind, but enrich it. Since they are rarer, this creates a tendency to diversify one's activities. Regardless of towards where we tend, the Goddess of Diversity must not be forgotten.