No, I wasn't using the terms primitive and evolved in that way. I do understand the conceptual triggering effect that words can have, but it isn't my intention to trigger previous conceptions. Stimulating thinking along new avenues, maybe making visible the contours of a different framework is the effect I've been working on. Whether or not I've been successful in doing this, I'm okay with that, either way. But that's the context within which my words should be taken. I work with the limitations presented to me, and I do the best I can.
I don't mean limitations in a bad sense, either. Limitations can function as a spur to creativity in acts like making art, I see no reason to think the same can't apply elsewhere.
I like this:
Squirrels find a fraction of the nuts they bury. It's a huge labor loss for them to subsist at hardscrabble level. A strategy that reflects their fundamental organistic limitations.
Looked at in a certain light, I think it says a lot about humans, as well as squirrels.
As well it reminds me of J Posadas suggestion that 'the speed of thought depends on the dominant material means.' But I'm not a Marxist, not that kind, anyway. I'd stand the Marxist on his head in this case, suggest the reverse is true. Although maybe that's what Posadas was getting at.
Again, suggesting that "the 'fundamental organistic limitations' may depend on the speed of thought" is just that. A suggestion. The Marxist is free to do backflips, if he feels so inclined.
But psychoanalyzing the dog is not something I feel inclined to participate in. And again, terms like investment, totems, and fetishes are not intended as conceptual triggers. I'm using them more like Jackie Chan uses whatever happens to be on hand in a fight scene. A chair, a curtain, an applecart, a chicken are just weapons in the fight scene. When the scene is over, these things resume their normal, socially sanctioned functions and roles. Demanding that the chicken is just a chicken doesn't stop Jackie, and it ain't gonna stop me.
Sacred capitalism, I don't know. Maybe everything is sacred, and nothing is sacred already. But I have to disagree with the statement "if we (and *they*) simply accepted that we are ruled by evil sorcerers and their magick forbids abstension or exit except (maybe) through death." I'm not arguing against it, I just don't play by your rules. They don't apply to me. In my opinion.
Anyway, at some point I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree. You too, Jack. So I'll back off, let you fine folks get on with what you're doing. I know it won't take anything away from my words, because there's nothing in them to take away.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.