About This Forum: Social Sciences, Moral and Religious

[Stan]

That is one of the reasons why this forum exists as "Social Science and Religion" (the other reason is probably parsimony, but we don't want too many forums, do we?). Still and all, "religion", as many Anthropologists define it, is "living and lived", even if many people wouldn't consider this definition as "true".

Hello Marc !
I like this (yes, that would be a compliment) !
I am only now gaining an appreciation for your free anthro lessons

Truth be told, back when Rob started his thread and You, Tom and I jumped in with all "fours", I neglected to check your profile and simply jumped in hammering the need for Anthro classes! I would later feel like a real Delta Hotel (but I did get over it ).

Social Science and especially religion was something I ran away from once in the Armed Forces and away from what I, a 17 year old, felt was no longer relevant.

In reality, it was not only relevant, but significant. I used it, learned from it and made it out of Africa with it. Much like Tom's descriptions once he left, my nightmares would also come, very unwelcomed.

Have a Nice Weekend !
Stan

[marct]

Hello Marc !
I like this (yes, that would be a compliment) !
I am only now gaining an appreciation for your free anthro lessons

Free? Damn, don't tell my wife!

Truth be told, back when Rob started his thread and You, Tom and I jumped in with all "fours", I neglected to check your profile and simply jumped in hammering the need for Anthro classes! I would later feel like a real Delta Hotel (but I did get over it ).

LOLOL Hey, Stan, I feel like that all the time - and, yeah, I get over it .

Social Science and especially religion was something I ran away from once in the Armed Forces and away from what I, a 17 year old, felt was no longer relevant.

In reality, it was not only relevant, but significant. I used it, learned from it and made it out of Africa with it. Much like Tom's descriptions once he left, my nightmares would also come, very unwelcomed.

I guess it's always been one of my passions . What has always toasted my cookies is that both social science and religion tend to be taught so poorly! I've tried to remember that when I teach... to make it interesting and relevant to what's going on. I remember one class I had on the Anthropology of Religion, and I'm lecturing on about the great theorists and their models. Needless to say, my students decided that "meditation" (aka sleep") was a good response. So I thought, "What the heck" and asked them if any of them knew how to cast love spells. That perked them up! In the end, I spent 2 hours talking about it and sneaking in the theory.

Marc

[Rob Thornton]

I needed a way to step outside "my" way of doing analysis - talking to Marc has helped me out allot. However, now it makes my head hurt since I can't just take the "well - its what I would have done if I were them" approach out of hand. Funny, the longer I stay here, the less I think I understand why some of this stuff happens (its why I responded to the thread ref. the memo from Mahdi leadership). Its hard to sort random decision from planned decision in many cases. Its difficult to make connections about one act to another act unless its either obvious (ex. everything happens at roughly the same time, on roughly the same types of targets, to achieve a roughly the same effects). We spent a day one tie trying to figure out if the guy the IA found stuffed in a rice bag was just an IED gone bad for the emplacer who was being taken back home, or he was somebody killed in manner that allowed him to be stuffed in a rice bag (there is no Iraqi CSI and once a guy is in a rice bag (maybe a 3 ft x 18 in bag), nobody really wants to dump him out to "examine" him).

Connecting one thing to another can lead to some bad assumptions. Assuming motivations are tied to your motivations can also be deadly. While I have not "figured it out", Marc's and the SWC members comments cause me to reconsider first assuptions and challenge them. I always liked Johnathan Hume, the Scottish philosopher who once remarked (paraphrased) that he had to drink beer while he played billiards because else he'd get to caught up in the physics of the blliard balls and get a headache. Currently I need a beer or two myself, but its still about 6 weeks out

[marct]

Hi Rob,

I needed a way to step outside "my" way of doing analysis - talking to Marc has helped me out allot. However, now it makes my head hurt since I can't just take the "well - its what I would have done if I were them" approach out of hand. Funny, the longer I stay here, the less I think I understand why some of this stuff happens (its why I responded to the thread ref. the memo from Mahdi leadership). Its hard to sort random decision from planned decision in many cases.

You know, there's a type of "knowledge" called "tacit knowledge" (I think the termw as coined by Michael Polanyi) that is "sub-conscious". It's one of the ways that cultural anthropologists are trained to operate, adn it can drive you crazy . What you seem to be describing, Rob, is similar to what we go through about 3 months into fieldwork - a kind of "Nothing makes any sense!! I want to go HOME!! THEY"RE ALL CRAZY!!!" reaction.

"Understanding" is often based on unconscious assumptions about reality. Remember when you were telling us about your CO and his belief in the djinn? That's part of it. After a while, parts of "their" worldview - how they conceove and perceive reality - filters into you brain where it runs head on into "our" worldview. And sometimes, the two don't match. Even "random" decisions are conditioned by your worldview, rather than being truly "random" in the mathematical sense.

[Its difficult to make connections about one act to another act unless its either obvious (ex. everything happens at roughly the same time, on roughly the same types of targets, to achieve a roughly the same effects). We spent a day one tie trying to figure out if the guy the IA found stuffed in a rice bag was just an IED gone bad for the emplacer who was being taken back home, or he was somebody killed in manner that allowed him to be stuffed in a rice bag (there is no Iraqi CSI and once a guy is in a rice bag (maybe a 3 ft x 18 in bag), nobody really wants to dump him out to "examine" him).

There's a limit to the inductive method, and that limit is your comprehension of the reality of the perpetrator. It's one of the reasons I've always found criminal profiling so interesting. Operationally, the important thing would be to identify the body and return him to his family with "honour". Sometimes you just have to say "I don't grok this" and leave it at that <sigh>.

Connecting one thing to another can lead to some bad assumptions. Assuming motivations are tied to your motivations can also be deadly. While I have not "figured it out", Marc's and the SWC members comments cause me to reconsider first assuptions and challenge them. I always liked Johnathan Hume, the Scottish philosopher who once remarked (paraphrased) that he had to drink beer while he played billiards because else he'd get to caught up in the physics of the blliard balls and get a headache. Currently I need a beer or two myself, but its still about 6 weeks out

I've always thought well of beer, myself . Maybe the US colleges will institute Heinlein's course in "Doubt" - I think it would prove very usefull.

Marc