One of the most important insights about people is that they can form social relationships with almost anything. Animals, the deceased, spirits, Gods, inanimate objects—humans look across nature and find new allies or adversaries everywhere they go.
Wonderful read. With regards to the “onerous service” owed to the ritual artifacts of the Berawan of Long Teru, I wonder if a similar position can’t be adopted in politics and modern science and medicine. Of course the circumstances are wildly different, but perhaps society could flourish if we collectively had less veneration of otiose tradition.
You might be interested in how people extend social & cultural categories to computers and computational agents. This includes reciprocating with them. See https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153 and "The Media Equation" for reviews.
This must be the best starting sentence I have ever read on substack:
"One of the most important insights about people is that they can form social relationships with almost anything. Animals, the deceased, spirits, Gods, inanimate objects—humans look across nature and find new allies or adversaries everywhere they go."
I am particularly interested in how your symbolic reciprocity will influence what relationship we humans will build with the ever more powerful AI. Can anthropology shed light on this important question?
Jun 17, 2022·edited Jun 17, 2022Liked by William Buckner
The veneration of heads in the Indonesian archipelago is not limited to one's own father, either. Highland Sulawesi headhunters did the same thing with lowlander heads a century ago. Civil authorities frowned on it, of course, so they've since switched to keeping symbolic potato sack "heads" in their attic spaces.
It's also interesting how the obligations to an enemy head seem to have developed into secondary systems of obligation and exchange. For instance, on Sumba Island, taking your enemy's head and hiding it in a cabinet is like holding the deed to his land; alternately, giving back the head is how your war with his family ends.
Jul 1, 2022·edited Jul 1, 2022Liked by William Buckner
Reminded me of Sahlins in 'Culture and practical reason': ""it happends as if" the food system was modeled by a principle of metonymy that, seen in totality, configures a substanial metaphor of canibalism. Dogs and horses participate in American society as subjects. They have their own individual names, and it is certainly our custom to converse with them, whereas we dont speak to pigs and cows. Consequently, dogs and horses are considered to be inedible, since, as the Red Queen put it, "it is not the custom to cut to pieces anyone to whom one has been introduced". In any case, as domestic cohabitants, dogs are closer to men than horses, and their consumption is even more unthinkable: they are "of the family". Traditionally, horses have a more servile, working relationship with people; just as dogs are relatives, horses are servants, outside the kinship. Hence, the consumption of horses is at least conceivable, even if it is not generalized, while the idea of eating dogs understandably arouses a repugnance similar to incest, which is also taboo".
Gramatical errors my own, as I couldnt find an english version.
Wonderful read. With regards to the “onerous service” owed to the ritual artifacts of the Berawan of Long Teru, I wonder if a similar position can’t be adopted in politics and modern science and medicine. Of course the circumstances are wildly different, but perhaps society could flourish if we collectively had less veneration of otiose tradition.
You might be interested in how people extend social & cultural categories to computers and computational agents. This includes reciprocating with them. See https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153 and "The Media Equation" for reviews.
This must be the best starting sentence I have ever read on substack:
"One of the most important insights about people is that they can form social relationships with almost anything. Animals, the deceased, spirits, Gods, inanimate objects—humans look across nature and find new allies or adversaries everywhere they go."
William, can you look at the debate on LaMDA? I put some links together at https://hackmd.io/@alexhkurz/rkmH9DLt5
I am particularly interested in how your symbolic reciprocity will influence what relationship we humans will build with the ever more powerful AI. Can anthropology shed light on this important question?
From all I read so far on the topic the article https://sevenius-nilsen.medium.com/artificial-consciousness-is-irrelevant-7dad40b77eed , in particular the concluding section "LaMDA Is A Harbinger Of Things To Come" seems the most relevant one to the question.
The veneration of heads in the Indonesian archipelago is not limited to one's own father, either. Highland Sulawesi headhunters did the same thing with lowlander heads a century ago. Civil authorities frowned on it, of course, so they've since switched to keeping symbolic potato sack "heads" in their attic spaces.
It's also interesting how the obligations to an enemy head seem to have developed into secondary systems of obligation and exchange. For instance, on Sumba Island, taking your enemy's head and hiding it in a cabinet is like holding the deed to his land; alternately, giving back the head is how your war with his family ends.
Reminded me of Sahlins in 'Culture and practical reason': ""it happends as if" the food system was modeled by a principle of metonymy that, seen in totality, configures a substanial metaphor of canibalism. Dogs and horses participate in American society as subjects. They have their own individual names, and it is certainly our custom to converse with them, whereas we dont speak to pigs and cows. Consequently, dogs and horses are considered to be inedible, since, as the Red Queen put it, "it is not the custom to cut to pieces anyone to whom one has been introduced". In any case, as domestic cohabitants, dogs are closer to men than horses, and their consumption is even more unthinkable: they are "of the family". Traditionally, horses have a more servile, working relationship with people; just as dogs are relatives, horses are servants, outside the kinship. Hence, the consumption of horses is at least conceivable, even if it is not generalized, while the idea of eating dogs understandably arouses a repugnance similar to incest, which is also taboo".
Gramatical errors my own, as I couldnt find an english version.