Reading List, past and present
Notes for myself on what I am reading. Oddly enough, they all seem to be science related, and many of them dealing with ideas from evolutionary psychology / sociobiology.
Terrence W. Deacon. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain.
Deacon has an interesting take on what language is and how it developed. It’s compelling, although there are apparently several issues about his understanding of linguistics. Still, the idea that symbolic representation (the core of human language) coming out of the need to tie one male to one female (marriage) is interesting. And says a lot about why we feel betrayed by marriage partners straying, even in this age of popular adultery and divorce.
Raymond Coppinger & Lorna Coppinger. 2001. Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution.
He cites reports from out of a fox farm in Russia, where they bred for tameness. The result was not a tame fox, but something that looked a lot like a dog. With doggy behaviors. He’s pretty hard on dogs as pets, seeing it as a win for us, lose for dogs situation. He describes how he thinks dogs became what they are. The idea (from the foxes) that if you select for tameness, you will get a dog from a fox is really fascinating. His description of why breed dogs are always going to be genetic freaks is also great, along with his discussions of such breeding malfeasance as the abbreviated snout and big eyes of the pugs.
Both of these books argue that animals do not have language. They communicate, sure, but they do not have a symbolic reference.
Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson & Susan McCarth. 1995. When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals.
There are lots of reports of errors and gross overstatement in this book, too, including charges of their agenda driving their results. Still, an interesting argument that seems pretty obvious. Animals have some emotional form.
Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini, & Richard Lannon. 2000. General Theory of Love
Pretty much a response to all the other stuff that I’m reading. There really isn’t a vast literature in science on love. For the most part, science has tried to deny the body (if you take the William James bear idea) for just the mind. But denying the body is denying human emotion. Denying human emotion is denying humanity. Denying humanity is evil, that leads to all types of wretchedness and depravity.
Robert M. Sapolsky. 1994. Why zebras don’t get ulcers: A guide to stress, stress related diseases, and coping.
Not sure if this is still true or not, but the ideas are interesting.
Stephen Pinker. The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature.
I’m pretty sure that Pinker is right about some things, and just takes them too far in many places. There are places where I really think that he is simply outside his area of expertise and moving into places where a more nuanced response is required. But it’s a good antidote to the Goulds of the world who unquestioningly deny the reality of a basic human nature built into the human body. (Includes the brain, of course.)
