From: ST402341@brownvm.brown.edu (Gary Byma)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: The Changed World Unchanged (Re: WARNING)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:17:12 EDT
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <1992Oct15.033803.14709@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess
Anderson) said:
>In article <16880D957.CJR10@CCCVM.CCC.AMDAHL.COM>
>cjr10@cccvm.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Russell) writes:
>
>Responding to a prior exchange between us,
>
>>Memory is an integral part of human evolution
>
>Actually, this is an iffy statement, on the scientific
>face of it.
>
Not at all, Jess. Perhaps Chris should have said that the evolution
of memory is integral to human evolution. But given the premise of
evolution, it is easy to see that in order for higher level cognitive
abilities to develop, memory is critical. While we cannot demonstrate
this in the lab, we can reconstruct it.
In the first place, we need procedural memory to generalize from
specific events, to prototype procedures. In addition, we need
episodic memory, which doesn't generalize but recalls specific
instances. It is believed that many mammals and a number of birds
possess both of these types of memory.
Finally, we need some form of semantic or symbolic memory. This
is critical to the development of language which is itself
symbol manipulation. I believe that it is clear what the selective
advantage of these various types of memory would be, but the
interested reader might want to check a number of sources on the
evolution of language and mind.

McCrone, John. 1991  The Ape that Spoke. William Morrow and Co.: New
   New York.
Lieberman, Philip. 1984. The Biology and Evolution of Language.
   Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Donal, Merlin. 1991. Origins of the Modern Mind. Harvard University
   Press: Cambridge.

>>and remembering our past successes and failures, and more so
>>the latter, is necessary.
>
>I assume you're talking about the form of memory we call
>history, that is, an interpretation of such primary and
>secondary sources as the past leaves us, buttressed by
>living memories.
>
Only if we are talking about personal history. It is our own
set of memories, not those of others, that shapes how we interact
with our environment and how we interpret our environment. It
is sometimes difficult to understand someone else's percept of
the world for precisely the reason that we don't share their
experiences. (This is why I suggested Donald that he share his
experiences on the net, not just the results of those experiences.)
Often too, when we understand what a person has gone through, it
becomes harder to see how they can be faulted for their actions and
reactions in their reality. The beauty of soc.motss stems in part
from the fact that we all have shared experience to one degree
or another in coming to terms with our sexuality. Clearly the
degree of intersection varies from motsser to motsser.
>
>But moving on does not include forgetting, and most of the
>time "move on" is a coded signal for "don't let's bother
>ourselves with this problem." I think that's an especially
>common subtext of the context (racism) under discussion.
>
Moving on requires that you have had some experience that has
taught you that it is beneficial to not allow past negative
experiences to weigh you down. It is not at all clear that
everyone should have this view on the past. Particularly if
each time you attempt to forget the past and 'move on' you
get blind-sided by yet another deleterious experience. Eventually
you learn to be wary. In addition, forgetting is only possible
in those circumstances where the reinforcing negative memories
become increasingly infrequent.

>
>I think the more common phenomenon, and especially where
>racism is concerned, is that the threads of present
>oppression and past oppression cannot be separated from one
>another except in trivial ways.
>
>Again and again -- and again -- we find in the history of
>this oppression that the master class (only the neo-Nazis
>use this idea in the open; others use it covertly) has found
>a way, yet another way, to make sure the tradition of white
>privilege is not weakened.  The bottom line, despite
>unbelievable amounts of high-sounding cant, is that the yoke
>of oppression is *so* bad, that any talk of "it's getting
>better" is mostly an additional affront to the intelligence
>of those most directly under the boot.
>
>Jess Anderson
>Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu

The very least that I can do is to not add to that oppression. This,
at a minimum, is how I ought to treat every living soul; Christ's
injunction to 'love your neighbor as yourself'.
This dialogue is all very interesting, but the real truth is that
undertaking to change the status quo will undoubtedly require some
measure of sacrifice on the part of those who have benefitted from
from it. The question is, how willing are we to do so?

Gary Byma