Category Archives: The Emergence (of the Possibility) of Unconstrained Complexity

Prior to the Developed Neolithic in Southwestern Asia, all human cultures exhibited constrained complexity. The Uruk culture of southern Mesopotamia was the first to exhibit unconstrained complexity, that is, social changes that would lead to the formation of civilization. In between, is the possibility of unconstrained complexity, such as the Ubaid. This is discussed in chapters 3, 4A, 5, 6A&B, and 7 of Razie Mah’s An Archaeology of the Fall.

06/8/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2R

Summary of text [comment] page 71

[In sum, ‘the idea of natural love’ is pure propaganda.

It moves the interpellated person away from what the human evolved to be.

Where does one see this idea propagated in contemporary society?

On television and in the movies?

In popular books and magazines?

Wake up.

Does anyone writing for popular television, movies, books and magazines suffer the consequences of misleading their consumers?

Let the buyer beware.

‘Natural love’ sells, just like perfume.]

12/18/14

Beneath the Veil of Strange Verses by Jeremiah L. Alberg 2013 1B

Alberg presented a quick summary of Girard’s ideas (xiv-xvi, 14-16).  This summary affirms my suspicions that An Archaeology of the Fall places a discontinuity right in the middle of Girard’s hypothesis.

An Archaeology proposes that, 7800 years ago, humans began to change the way they talked, from hand-speech talk to speech alone talk, and the difference in semiotic qualities potentiated unconstrained complexity; that is, civilization.

“The world that we evolved in” is not the same as “the world that we live in”.

The world of constrained complexity is not the same as the world of unconstrained complexity.

Girard’s concept of mimetic rivalry pertains to our current Lebenswelt of unconstrained complexity.  Literature is full of it.  As we all know, or at least, as Girard convincingly argues, (what we once called) “literature” provides greater insight into the workings of the human mind than what we call “social science”.

But then, social science has its own “literature”.  How confusing is that?]