Reading J.D. Sawyer's latest in the context of your ideas I realized that both spacial and temporal types [not calling them phenotypes as I am still not sold on that] are *conquering* approaches (one in space - land, resources, empire; the other in time - children, culture, community.) And I now realize that you actually present them that way (it goes without saying for the spacials, the novelty here is that the temporals are a conquering type as well.)
There is, however, at least one other type - a preserving type, "the conservatives". Which, according to Sawyer (and I agree with him on this) when predominant cannot really conserve or preserve anything, since if you are not growing, you are dying. You can't just preserve, you have to take risks and grow.
Now, I'll go somewhat out on a limb here, but within every society or community there must be a preserving, "conservative" subtype. People who mitigate the risks of conquering. And that role is found much more among women than men. However, when that type starts to predominate it is one of the signs of a decadent and dying society (not sure what the cause and what is the effect here; it might be a "dialectic".)
I’m unclear what you mean by conquering children, culture, community. My model is that temporalists “allow” (not saying consciously or deliberately) such things as culture, community and child rearing practices to emerge out of their confrontation with nature through the negative feedback loop that governs such interactions under harsh Darwinian conditions. Under such conditions the margin of survival is so narrow that they must be attuned and respond directly to such feedback from the natural world. The gradual integration and perpetuation of such lessons into daily life practices is what constitutes custom and tradition. Unless there’s something I’m misunderstanding here, one would have to engage serious semantic torture of the word conquer to have it apply to those processes. It seems to me that the rest of your analysis arises from this premise, but I don’t understand the logic of the premise. Of course, feel free to elaborate if you'd like.
Thanks as ever for your contributions to the comments, MS.
>I’m unclear what you mean by conquering children, culture, community.
Quoting J.D. Sawyer:
"Living systems exist only and always in one of two states: growth, and decay. A living thing that is growing is one that is either expanding outwards to claim more of the world as its own, or is extending longitudinally so that it will continue to endure, to exercise power and influence, long into the future.
When you have children, you’re engaging in an act of conquest. Your genes and your culture (if you’re actually the kind of person who parents their children instead of either abandoning them or trying to make them into your Mini-Mes) will outlast you and will play some kind of role in the future unfolding of the universe.
For artists, inventors, and entrepreneurs, their progeny doesn’t just consist of their children. It also consists of their customers, fans, and the societies within which their innovations find a place.
Whether the conqueror is a monster (Genghis Khan killed forty million people—a tenth of the world’s population-at-the-time) or a benefactor (George Washington changed the course of the world by doing his duty when he did not have much desire for the notoriety it would bring) or a mercenary (Leonardo da Vinci got himself a cushy patronage so he could play with the things that interested him), the effect is the same. With all life forms—animals, people, ecologies, economies, religions, nations, and civilizations—that which cuts through the world is that which survives.
This is “the edge.”
When living things lose their edge, they change from a state of growth to a state of decay."
So that would be an example, in my estimation, of what I had called semantic torture. And as a regular contributor here, you know that I'm as happy as anyone to engage in creative neologisms and metaphors. I just don't find that one especially fertile. Though as long as we're clear that we're talking about mostly unconscious processes and motivations, I don't see anything of particular importance to object to in the rest of the description you cited. I won't moralize the biology the way he does, but whatever. Thanks for the clarification.
Reading J.D. Sawyer's latest in the context of your ideas I realized that both spacial and temporal types [not calling them phenotypes as I am still not sold on that] are *conquering* approaches (one in space - land, resources, empire; the other in time - children, culture, community.) And I now realize that you actually present them that way (it goes without saying for the spacials, the novelty here is that the temporals are a conquering type as well.)
There is, however, at least one other type - a preserving type, "the conservatives". Which, according to Sawyer (and I agree with him on this) when predominant cannot really conserve or preserve anything, since if you are not growing, you are dying. You can't just preserve, you have to take risks and grow.
Now, I'll go somewhat out on a limb here, but within every society or community there must be a preserving, "conservative" subtype. People who mitigate the risks of conquering. And that role is found much more among women than men. However, when that type starts to predominate it is one of the signs of a decadent and dying society (not sure what the cause and what is the effect here; it might be a "dialectic".)
Hi MS
I’m unclear what you mean by conquering children, culture, community. My model is that temporalists “allow” (not saying consciously or deliberately) such things as culture, community and child rearing practices to emerge out of their confrontation with nature through the negative feedback loop that governs such interactions under harsh Darwinian conditions. Under such conditions the margin of survival is so narrow that they must be attuned and respond directly to such feedback from the natural world. The gradual integration and perpetuation of such lessons into daily life practices is what constitutes custom and tradition. Unless there’s something I’m misunderstanding here, one would have to engage serious semantic torture of the word conquer to have it apply to those processes. It seems to me that the rest of your analysis arises from this premise, but I don’t understand the logic of the premise. Of course, feel free to elaborate if you'd like.
Thanks as ever for your contributions to the comments, MS.
>I’m unclear what you mean by conquering children, culture, community.
Quoting J.D. Sawyer:
"Living systems exist only and always in one of two states: growth, and decay. A living thing that is growing is one that is either expanding outwards to claim more of the world as its own, or is extending longitudinally so that it will continue to endure, to exercise power and influence, long into the future.
When you have children, you’re engaging in an act of conquest. Your genes and your culture (if you’re actually the kind of person who parents their children instead of either abandoning them or trying to make them into your Mini-Mes) will outlast you and will play some kind of role in the future unfolding of the universe.
For artists, inventors, and entrepreneurs, their progeny doesn’t just consist of their children. It also consists of their customers, fans, and the societies within which their innovations find a place.
Whether the conqueror is a monster (Genghis Khan killed forty million people—a tenth of the world’s population-at-the-time) or a benefactor (George Washington changed the course of the world by doing his duty when he did not have much desire for the notoriety it would bring) or a mercenary (Leonardo da Vinci got himself a cushy patronage so he could play with the things that interested him), the effect is the same. With all life forms—animals, people, ecologies, economies, religions, nations, and civilizations—that which cuts through the world is that which survives.
This is “the edge.”
When living things lose their edge, they change from a state of growth to a state of decay."
So that would be an example, in my estimation, of what I had called semantic torture. And as a regular contributor here, you know that I'm as happy as anyone to engage in creative neologisms and metaphors. I just don't find that one especially fertile. Though as long as we're clear that we're talking about mostly unconscious processes and motivations, I don't see anything of particular importance to object to in the rest of the description you cited. I won't moralize the biology the way he does, but whatever. Thanks for the clarification.
got it
Fascinating! Thank you for such a deep and interesting review. Gonna get your book and Grossi's