Handbook comment thread

[Elliot Kane]

The Humanology Handbook is a slow build and the thread for it will be locked and stay that way until its entirely done, as I don't want any comments breaking the flow.

It'll be unlocked when it's done. Until then, you can put all comments, questions, etc, in here...

[Ubereil]

At the top you should include an index. It should be possible to get the link to the individual posts somehow.

Übereil

[Elliot Kane]

It is, Ube. I think I shall do that.

Thanks for the suggestion

[fughawzi]

First I'm going to say what? And then I'm going to say NOOOOO.

And then I'll explain more later! But I will repeat what someone intelligent said, which is that it isn't an art. The real, actual term is humanities!

[Elliot Kane]

Humanities does not mean what you think it means.

Hence the new term

Feel free to disagree with everything I write. Many do!

[Lews]

No.

[Flix]

Humanities = the study of literature, philosophy, and art, as distinguished from the natural sciences.

EK, what is this? Is any of this new, or are you just compiling all your stuff like a book? You already had an index, btw, that had a logical order and linked to each individual article. Unless you're breaking new ground, which I don't know because I'm not going to compare the old and the new, then what's the freaking point? People have already made their comments and had their discussions about each of these topics, now it's all been sterilized and re-started, for what?

[Lews]

I made something up once too. It was called Zigadefoo. It's the study of all parts of the human form.

[Elliot Kane]

Flix - there's nothing really new in there, no. The point is that the main index has become bloated with a lot of things that are distractions and also that I wasn't sure the way it all connects up was as obvious as it should have been.

The Handbook won't be useful to anyone who has read a lot of my stuff and made the connections themselves, as I'm sure you have. It's meant to give people who have never really encountered the system before a good starting point and a way to see all the connections without having to wade through everything.

So for those reasons, I figured it was worth doing

[ss]

To all the boardies...

I think Elliot is simply trying to answer this article...

www.humanology.com/

In the end it will all come down to "In the Beginning God......" ;D

You're doing a fine job EK...

[Elliot Kane]

...I would have been, if I had the faintest clue that that thing even existed, ss! Nice find, though.

At a quick read, though, I think I HAVE answered most of it, so I'm quite happy about that! ;D

The only thing I created purposefully to answer anyone else's questions is my guide to the mind of the suicide bomber, as apparently if baffled the experts who can't work out the mindset. I didn't think it was that hard, so I wrote my guide. Beyond that, I'm just seeking my OWN answers. If other people like them, too, that's great. If not, so be it.

I must admit, I did know other people use 'Humanology' as a word, too, though. Peter & BJC discovered it a while back and were incredibly smug about it. But then, anyone setting out to create a 'study of humanity' is almost certain to come up with that name. I've just never cared enough to bother finding out what the other people were DOING with it. That's still true ;D

(And thanks!

[Lews]

So what's so special about your term as opposed to humanities?

[Flix]

Well, even though EK does shun science and psychology in favor of philosophy, his brand of Humanology is trying to be a "big picture" comprehensive thingy, similar to that website ss posted.

[Elliot Kane]

Nothing special about it, Lews. It just creates a differentiation. The humanities don't include some stuff Humanology does and vice versa. Where we have different concepts, we need different words. Confusing, otherwise.

All any word is is an identifier. When I talk about 'Humanology' you all know I mean something quite different to 'the study of literature, philosophy, and art'.

[Lews]

That's what I'm asking. What does it include that humanities doesn't?

[Elliot Kane]

Well, if you looked at the dictionary, the humanities are defined as: 'the study of literature, philosophy, and art'. The only part of that that belongs in Humanology is the philosophy part.

Humanology also includes large amounts of psychology (Though not psychiatry - the two are very different!), historical study, evolutionary theory (As in 'systems change over time to reflect their environment'), sociology and theology (Mainly Buddhist). And possibly a few more ologies I've forgotten.

So it couldn't even remotely be described as humanities, I'm afraid.

[Cat]

Firstly, Elliot's guide seems to be compiling what he's found of the world, a lot of it is in agreement with other studies (Tajfel's Social Identity Theory, and Mary Ainsworth's Stange Situation being two examples). So there doesn't seem to be much of a problem there, it's making links too though, something that other modern "humanologists" (for want of a better word) are working towards.

As for the naming of such a compilation, whilst Humanology is perfectly acceptable I must disagree with E and his "it couldn't even remotely be described as humanities" sure it may of some differentiation, but it offers too many similaities to not be put under that ''category''. Like Mechanics and Statistics are both Maths, but any Statistician would claim that what he does isn't like Maths, but different somehow.

As for Elliot's (rather short I felt) sentence about "Well, if you looked at the dictionary" I am much surprised, whilst the dictionary doesn't offer a definition that completely opposes what others say; "Those branches of knowledge, such as philosophy, literature, and art, that are concerned with human thought and culture." Doesn't mean that the exact definition of it all comes out of a dictionary, and I must say I was a little surprised to learn that (not to pick on you but) Elliot specifically stated in such a way where there could be no other definition except the one he found in the dictionary, because 'dictionaries are always right'.

Anyway that's besides the point

On another note; Elliot I wonder if you've seen anything about David Logan on Tribal Leadership;
there's a video here; www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTkKSJSqU-I
and more on Neo-Tribalism; resurgence.opendemocracy.net/index.php/Neo-Tribalism
I thought you might find it interesting (:

[Elliot Kane]

Never heard of him, Cat, but I will take a look

To be honest, yes, 'Humanities' is usually held to consist of more than may be found in that dictionary definition. To my knowledge, there are several definitions, including the one used in my old school where 'humanities' was basically History and Geography and nothing else. Words are always what you make of them.

But the biggest problem with defining Humanology as a branch of the humanities is simply that of application. Humanities is the study of things that people have found out or otherwise already created and it is not intended to be a system that allows you to apply it so much as a learning of what is already known. That I would consider to be the most significant difference by far.

The humanities are, in essence, a history of humanity to date. Humanology can be used to analyze, assess and thus to create new ideas and new concepts as well as to critically weigh up those that already exist.

Significant differences, I think you will agree

[Elliot Kane]

Watching now, Cat. So far I like it. This guy understands...

Some of his language is off, though. His 'stage one' groups are not 'fails' - they are rejectors. He should know better...

...And done. Yes, I like David Logan. He puts it all VERY differently to how I would, but his system works, which is always the main thing. Good stuff

(The article was rather uninteresting, but you can't win 'em all! ;D)