Name: 2017年 意味の地図03：マリオネットと個人（後編 (2017 Maps of Meaning 03: Marionettes and Individuals (Part 2))
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T10:31:28.000Z
Duration: 2 h 26 min 56 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

the last time we were here we got maybe a third of the way through this story

様態の副詞

the story of Pinokio and the transformation of a marionette into something hypothetically real

I'm gonna backtrack a few slides and it'll get us into it again

so you remember that the blue fairy, so I would say that the benevolent element of mother nature

in the schemata that we are going to use to investigate mythology

was more or less allowed her entrance because Gepetto was a good guy and he wished for the right thing

and so in some sense... here's a way of thinking about that... you know

genetic / environmental studies on children's temperament have revealed something quite interesting

which is that the shared environment that children have within a family

so that would be what's the same about your environment and your brother's environment, the same

doesn't have that much effect on your temperament or his temperament

'cause the presumption always was that within a family there is a shared environment, right?

and something was common about the environment to every child within that environment

but there isn't much of a shared environmental effect on temperament

so then you can say, well that makes it appear as though isn't that relevant in relationship to the development of temperament

but you could also suggest something else

you could suggest that if parenting is occurring properly, the effect of the shared environment should be very close to zero

and the reason for that is that you establish an individual relationship with each child

and the environment is actually a microenvironment that's composed of your observations of this child and that specific child's interaction with you

like to some degree, if there is a shared environment, that means that you're forcing the same principles on every child

so my suspicions are, although I don't know this, and the research hasn't been done

that in bad families there's a shared environmental effect, but in good families that minimizes

so that lets the child's biological predisposition, roughly, manifest itself with support and in some positive manner

well, I don't want to extend the analogy too far, but you can imagine

that, and this is what this film proposes, if you aim properly in relationship to your child

what you're trying to do is to establish an individual relationship and to allow them to move towards

whatever their particular expression of individuality happens to be

and that's... that would be the same as allowing nature to take its course in some sense

at least nature in its positive guise, and that's exactly what happens here

the other thing that happens, of course, is that the cricket, for reasons that aren't clear, precisely

is knighted by the blue fairy and serves as Pinokio's conscience

although he isn't very good at it, which is a very peculiar thing, and quite a marked point that the film is making

that that conscience actually has something to learn, too

and there's actually a Freudian element to that, you know, because Freud thought of the superego

as the internalization, roughly speaking, of the father,

and it could be very severe, the superego, so like a really strict father, really tyrannical father inside your head

although I think it's better to think about the superego as the internalized representation of society at large

mediated to some degree through your parents, 'cause it's not as if your father, even assuming he's tyrannical

is the inventor of all those tyrannical rules, he's the  propagator of them

but he's actually a proxy voice, even if it's just for the harsh side of society, he's the proxy voice for society

and because we're social creatures, the utility of having an internal social voice to guide you

although, again, you seem to be able to follow it or not follow it, which I also find spectacularly interesting

because, obviously if it was an unerring guide, you could just follow it

and if it was an unerring guide, you wouldn't need free will either, because you could just act out the dictates of this internal representation

so anyways, the proposition here is that the conscience exists, but it's a relatively flawed entity

it needs to be modified as well by nature

which is quite interesting, 'cause the blue fairy knights him, 'cause you also might think of the conscience as only something that's socially constructed

right, which is the more typical viewpoint, but I don't buy that for a second

because I believe firmly, and I believe the Piagetian interpretation of child development

more or less bears this out, is that there are parameters within which conscience has to operate

and it's sort of like this, it's like, it's the same parameters that govern fair play, we'll say that

and so you can say there's fair play within a game, and there's fair play across sets of games

and the set of games is pretty much indistinguishable from the actual environment

if you think all the things you do as nested games, at some point the spread of that is large enough so that it encompasses everything you do

which includes the environment, and so I believe that you're adapted to the set of all possible games, roughly speaking

all possible playable games, something like that

and that you know the rules for that, which is why, we talked about this a little bit, why you're so good at identifying cheaters

we have a module for that, according to the evolutionary psychologists

and not only you identify them, but you remember them, it really sticks in your mind

and there's other evidence, too, one piece of evidence that I love, well, there's a couple

one I would derive from Frans de Waal, who's a famous primatologis, and he studied the prototype morality that emerges in chimpanzees

and it's very much nested in their dominance structures

you know, because you could think of morality in some sense as the understanding of the rules by which the dominance hierarchy operates, right

and so you could say, well, the biggest, ugliest, meanest chimp...

and the male dominance hierarchies in chimps seem to be the predominant ones, although the females also have a dominance hierarchy

it's not quite so clear in bonobos, which seem to be more female-dominated

but in any case, the primary chimp dominance structure is male

and you could think, well it's like the caveman chimp who's biggest and toughest who necessarily rules, and who rules longest

but that isn't what de Waal  found; see, the problem with being... mean, lets say

and not negotiating your social landscape, and not trading reciprocal favors

is that no matter how powerful you are as an individual, two individuals three quarters your power could do you in

and that happens with the chimps fairly regularly; if the guy on top is too tyrannical

and doesn't make social connections, then weaker chimps, males, make good social connections

and when he's not in such good shape, they take him down, and viciously too

de Waal has documented some unbelievably horrendous acts of, let's call it, regicide

among the chimpanzee troupes that he studied, mostly in the Arnhem zoo

the big troupe there, that's been there a long time

but he's very interested in prototypical morality, and here's some other examples of prototypical morality

emerging among animals, there's many of them, but one is

you know, if two wolves have a dominance dispute, again that would be more likely among the male wolves

but it doesn't really matter, they basically display their size, and they growl ferociously

and they puff up their hair so they look bigger, and you can see cats do that when they go into fight or flight

not only do they puff up, including their tail, but they stand sideways

and the reason they do that is because they look bigger

right, 'cause they're trying to put up the most intimidating possible front

so anyways, if two wolves are going at it, what they're really trying to do is to size each other up

and they're trying to scare each other into backing off, fundamentally

because, see, the worst-case scenario is like, you're wolf number one, and I'm wolf number two

and we tear each other to shreds, but I win, but I'm so damaged after that wolf number three comes in and takes me out

so, like, there's a big cost to be paid even for victory in a dominance dispute, if it degenerates into violence

and animals, and human beings, but animals in particular, have evolved very, very specific mechanisms

to escalate dominance disputes towards violence step by step

so that they don't... so that the victor doesn't risk incapacitating himself by winning

so what happens with the wolves is that, you know, they growl at each other and posture display, and maybe they even snap at each other

but the probability that they're gonna get into a full-fledged fight is pretty low

and what happens is, one of the wolves backs off,  and flips over and shows his neck

and that basically means: "all right, tear it out," and the other wolf says:

though of course he doesn't, "well, you're kind of an idiot, and you're not that strong, but we might need you to take down a moose in the future

字幕リスト動画再生

2017年意味の地図03：マリオネットと個人（後編 (2017 Maps of Meaning 03: Marionettes and Individuals (Part 2))

sort

strategy

basically

compassion

2017年 意味の地図03：マリオネットと個人（後編 (2017 Maps of Meaning 03: Marionettes and Individuals (Part 2))

sort

strategy

basically

compassion

2017年意味の地図03：マリオネットと個人（後編 (2017 Maps of Meaning 03: Marionettes and Individuals (Part 2))