I find it interesting that some minds resort to emotional reasoning to defend their own need. Telling, also, that the #1 is defined as “useful” – a very subjective determination. The ambiguous being “useful” for what? God is also useful as a concept. Santa Clause, no less. Morality is useful. Is it fact? The idea that one judges differently and applies different rational standards in accordance with what is ‘right’ – a moral standard having nothing to do with reason - is exactly what is ‘the matter with this world’, and all errors stem from this dual-thinking or selective reasoning. For if we are to discount a portion of appearances we must then, at the very least, become skeptical about all appearances and then we are driven to the ultimate conclusion that nothing matters unless it comforts us or we benefit from it. We should not use our senses at all but rely on our feelings, spontaneously created through…imagination? It is funny how those most fervently accusing others of “generalizations” have no ability to define the simplest, and most specific, concept of the #1, except to say that it is “useful” – exposing the extent of their subjective reasoning here – or by using other ambiguous terminology such as “on/off” “up/down” or, my favorite, more the 0, less than 2. Excellent. I guess they show the same precision and deep reasoning when applying that wit when defining their precious concepts of “freedom” or “equality” or “right/wrong” or, the kicker, “ill/healthy”. The questions stand, and no manner of labeling and verbal acrobatics and personal attacks and feel-good rationalization can answer it: -If color is superficial then why is not form or taste or texture or smell? How do you recognize others or distinguish between objects or decide which food is good and which is spoiled or determine what animal is what? If our senses have served us in our past then why are they now, all of a sudden, questionable in certain social areas? -If color is superficial in one context then why is it deep and relevant in another? Color participates in combination with all sensual abstractions in the creation and evaluation of reality, why is it then selectively relevant – not surprisingly the superficiality of color being more pronounced when there are moral issues connected with it? -If one sensual abstraction, conveying information, is discredited then why is language more honest or precise? Is not language conveyed using sound? I would say that language is afar more misleading because it is more controllable by the mind with its own personal motives and hidden psychological prejudices. Civilization is built on the obtuse and needful being indoctrinated within a self-serving belief system. Institutions, such as religion and nation and culture, teach and then guide the mind into behaviors that benefit it, while not always benefiting the individual. How the mind is shaped and how this shaping builds a ‘reality bubble’ around its perceptions is a sociological phenomenon. Civilization is built on need, forcing compromises, which become behavioral standards. The hypocrisy behind morality and civility masks the deeper human instinctual and psychological predispositions and offers the comforting façade of safety and belonging. I leave all you children now to wallow in your self-righteousness and very “objective” self-evaluation of your own health and deeper wisdom. Ta, ta…..
What do you mean by 'senses'?? If you were talking to someone who was smiling in your face but was thinking you were lower than dirt, are you sure you would be able to pick it up?? How about the used car salesman that is so nice, helpful and cheerful telling you what you think you need just to make a sale?? Do you think he really cares?? How about the car that looks shiny and new but has a bad engine and transmission, can you tell just by appearance? The woman at the bar who is attractive but may have a venereal disease, can you tell just by looking at her? Sensual information is not always misleading of course. Morality and civility is not always hypocritical. Morality and civility is a form of truce to coexist. You might as well say there is no such thing as a defense in nature or predation as well. You might as well say that emotions don't exist but they do, that is also a "sense" but not always accurate. The need for safety or belonging is not a facade either. Do you live in a house or apartment?? Do you live in the forest?? Either way you would need to defend yourself or your territory in some way either by pissing on every tree, developing speed, fangs etc or in human civilization locking your door and your vehicle.
iam One last time. Perhaps before you attempt to discredit what I’m saying you should try understanding what I’m saying. I don’t know…what are you using to perceive, right now? The fact that the mind has developed the ability to mask or hide appearance only shows how fundamental appearance is. In this case you don’t have access to all that appears. If you were to open the hood or the engine you would see the totality of what appears. It is accessible and you must have the ability to correctly interpret what appears and what it means. A human being is not separable as mind body. The brain is the mind, as the mind is the brain. His appearance is a design constructed over millennia of natural selection, producing a particular appearance and perception. Any individual man represents the totality of Becoming – his inheritance – since the beginning of life. A man isn’t separable from his past. He is the focal point of his and his entire ancestry’s, historical Becoming. To assume that the environment has had affects on his physicality but not on his mentality, psychology and mind or on his individual potential, is the epitome of prejudiced, duplicitous, superficial and compartmentalized reasoning. The perceptive limitations of the human species are not the issue here. That you can only see, for example, a small part of the light spectrum does not negate the fact that what appears, appears totally and completely. Whether you can perceive the totality of what appears is another matter or whether you can correctly interpret what appears still another. This is why human perceptions are always generalizations. All human ideas and opinions are based on generalizations. Here the mind tries to extrapolate the entirety by using a limited amount of information. It’s success is determined by its quality. All sensual information are generalizations; abstractions and simplifications. The concept is a metaphysical one. Read some Sartre. What appears does so completely. There is no thing-in-itself hidden behind appearances. There is no soul, no unchanging core upon which appearance is added like a garment. What is added to appearance is a false appearance to mask the actual one, if one wants to deceive. Appearances can be used to mislead through imitation or pretence or they can be misinterpreted, but this does not negate their significance, in fact, it establishes the value of appearances further. Appearance is imitated or hidden or masked because it exposes essence, because it matters. The banana’s yellow is the banana. It isn’t something other than it, or different than it. Now that I can paint over that yellow and make the banana purple does not negate that the banana is yellow. Its yellowness is due to its entire genetic continuum exposing how the banana has reacted to and been affected by the environment. That the banana can be peeled exposing a white interior is also part of the banana’s appearance. Its shape no less significant. This “truce” is a compromise. One cares about the other because the other’s well-being or good opinion impacts its own existence. In essence one cares for the one’s self through the other. The caring extends as far as the other’s opinions or well-being affect the self. But let us not get into what emotions are and how they affect reasoning. Emotions have the same effect on the brain as alcohol does. They inebriate it, causing an immediate, unthinking, instinctive reaction. Who, the fuck, said that they were? What they are is an expression of universal flux. Need is the flux made conscious. To raise this biological lack into a moral high ground is to place human need over human reason. Where’s your “objectivity” now? The fact that I benefit or desire something does not make it right. The fact that I am comforted by something does not make it real – see God. Here you are showing the extent of your emotional reasoning. Emotion is a survival mechanism, resulting in a fight or flight reaction or, when emotion becomes more sophisticated enabling cohabitation and cooperation and tolerance and procreation and bonding. This does not make emotion rational. It is irrational in that it inebriates reason enough to enable the compromise or to force a reaction that is not thought out and consciously willed.
i did not say being comforted by an illusion is real. i said the need for safety is real that is why we lock our doors when we leave our home or our vehicles. how is that emotional reasoning? that is why we interact with others for our well-being, and emotions can be the sign on the road, emotions are not an illusion. When we are healthy, we feel emotionally well or when there is danger we feel fear etc. This is a cue nature has provided to sense, just as physical sensation as hunger. Emotions are not irrational, they become irrational when divorced from reality that is true.
Defined? My dear chap, not the slightest. That was a description, not the definition, which as any maths student can tell you is simply that 1 must satisfy 1*r = r = r*1 for any real number r. As you said, that isn't proof of its objective existence - it's just a concept. A human prejudice. As you reasonably pointed out, Santa, God, etc. are concepts too, and we all know many people doubt their existence. However, have you considered that the keyboard you're typing on is also just a concept? Look at those squiggles - 'q', 'y', 'i' - are they real? Do they have any inherent meaning? I think not, other than the meaning we give them in the context of English grammar, vocabulary and spelling. Yet they are useful, are they not? Since you have chosen to use these products of human prejudice to convey your thoughts, rather than beaming them directly into our sad, mushy minds Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Any Buddhist will tell you that reality is an illusion. But I've noticed it's a very persistent one. Do you really feel the need to turf away millennia of accumulated human concepts just because you don't find '1's floating around in pure natural objectivity, complete with detailed manuals and calculus guides? There is, of course, a major difference between concepts like those found in maths and physics, and those found in theology and myth and English - the former are far more consistent in allowing you to make accurate predictions. The latter, well, they give a less consistent insight into human nature. But I think that alone gives them some value, surrounded as we are by the buggers. (And to my misfortune, I sometimes believe I am one, so ... "know thyself" and all that.)
Satyr Very good job, you are putting up a fight and are giving me a debate. So now I'm going to attack your arguement. 1. Living matter(Animate) is not the same as Non Living matter (Inanimate) Your first intellectual error is, you do not know what life is. You view life simple as physical objects. This means to you that the woman is an object, your children are objects, you are an object. However you ignore the fact that living matter has unique properties. THE ANIMATE AND THE INANIMATE William James Sidis William James Sidis had the highest IQ ever recorded in human history. Over 300. If you take IQ seriously, this man is the smartest man who ever lived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis He writings on the animate and inanimate: http://www.sidis.net/ANIM7.htm 2. Your thinking is flat and 2 dimensional. When you think in this way, it's as if your brain is unable to see "inside" the minds of people, as you are trapped on the outside of the universe. Matter is just energy, and properties like color, shape, size, weight, really tell you nothing at all about reality. In fact, the eye does not see light, it's just electrical impulses in your brain interpreting what you see. It's our ability to calculate, and reason, which allows us to know something is there without being able to see it. 3. You ignore science. You claim science understands the brain, and that the mind and the brain are not seperate, this is saying something like how the genes and body are not seperate. If humans all share genes does that mean humans all share one body? According to you, we are all the same in one moment, but then you claim that "race" exists in the next and that some humans have "alien" genes. Which is it? Once again it's scientifically accurate to believe race is not real, but if you'd like to believe it is real, then you have to admit you don't know how many races exist, and that race might actually be the result of a virus or viruses physical, as well as memes(mind viruses) mental. If the mind is not seperate from the body, then what the hell is a mind virus? http://www.quantonics.com/How_Classicists_View_Reality.html 4. Geometry, the ability to measure shapes and see the "inside", was created by Pythagoras. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras This in the future allowed for calculus, which measures direction, speed, and movement in spacetime dimension. This is why we can figure out exactly how long it would take to get from here to the moon in space time dimension. However, the science also says at the quantum level that if something is small enough, distance itself ceases to exist. Time/space may not exist, because non locality is proven to exist. So yes, it's possible to communicate infinitely into space, and recieve communications infinately from space. Do you still believe the mind is just a physical object if we can communicate our minds through teleportation? Your theory on the mind and body do not even match the theories of modern physics, as we now have quantum entanglement, and quantum communication abilities which can allow us to send photons with text on it essentially anywhere in the universe, and also recieve it from anywhere in the universe, because theres no distance. So if the mind is just in the brain, explain how the hell you can communicate or entangle a pronton over here, and have it show up over there, breaking all the laws of physics that you depend on to say that the mind is trapped inside the body. What if the mind can be teleported into matter? What if that text we put in a photon, is discovered by some simple minded aliens, who cannot figure out what it is, but by trying to figure out what it is, their evolution is altered to the point where they can communicate better and evolving faster? Or it might reach aliens more advanced than us. It might even have the ability to reach us in the future or the past, we just don't know yet what the limits of our minds are, but we do know the limits of our body. So you choose to ignore the absolute science which proves that the mind can travel faster than light. You still believe your body is a physical object, just like a robot. You can think what you want, but you have to explain it in a way that makes sense. Do you actually believe you are the only self aware being in the universe? Do you honestly believe all other lifeforms are simply objects? The living exists to dominate the non living. Death is the only enemy of life.
Well races do exist just as different species. But since we are one species still we can exchange genes. It's the separation and environmental factor. To say a 'race' cannot exist is to say there is no difference between a lion or a tiger because they are both mammals or share some genetic traits. Or you could break it down further and say there is no difference between humans, lions and a tulip because all matter consists of atoms.
Why not - classification is a cultural construct...we can see difference and similarity at many levels macro, micro, etc.
Lions and Tigers are different species. Race and species are not the same thing as far as I'm concerned. Species DO exist. Race on the other hand is more of a meme/mind virus combined with perhaps actual physical viruses. A virus could have made pale skin, or dark skin, or curly hair, or straight. You could get the flu one day and have your genes changed and suddenly become a new race. There might be new races of humans right now in fact, because the humans today are not the same genetically as the humans yesterday. There is more difference between humans of the same race than between them because viruses and other things, literally can change a humans race. Maybe dark skinned people, were originally white, and simply were infected by a virus that made their skin dark, and they passed that gene on. Maybe dark skinned people and curly haired people mated because maybe they both looked different from the straight haired white people, suddenly you have a new race. Maybe blonde hair and blue eyes originally came from a viral infection that altered a gene or two. Maybe the original human all had brown hair and brown eyes since that's the most popular eye and hair color among all races.
TimeTraveler Hey retard! Right again. My thinking is 2 dimensional Movement As for the 300 I.Q. guy.... Human Judment Try thinking on your own, once in a while. It keeps the neurons flexible. ...or maybe you are just dumb. Population pressures forced certain human groups to migrate out of their traditional environments. These 'losers' had to adapt to more harsh and austere environments which meant they had to improvise and innovate and use their nuggets more than the winners who had no such added pressures. This, in turn forced a natural selection which promoted these adaptive traits, exacerbated by geographic isolation. Granted this isolation was too short and so it didn’t result in a complete cutting away, which would have resulted in another species, but it was sufficient to create physical and yes mental differences, no matter how slight many would like to believe they were. These past losers were forced, due to environmental pressures and circumstances to adapt or perish. They grew stronger through suffering. In time they built empires, and technologies and civilizations surpassing anything their cousins had, and return to their former ancestral territories as conquerors. The losers now winners; they dominate and enslave. The, once winners and now losers bitch and complain, asking for preferential treatment, unable to measure-up, blaming all their woes on the white-man’s cruelty or on prejudices. Evolution in all its glory. ZephyrTherefore the #1 is a concept with no definite meaning. A generalization just like the concept of 'here' and 'now' and 'self'. Humans use generalizations daily. Their every thought and word and idea is based on a hypothetical and a generalization.
I just explained how races evolved, USING science, and now you apply mythology to counter it? Look, there is no evidence at all that migration alone causes evolution. I explained how viruses can alter genetic information and introduce new genes as well as cause gene mutations. We use this concept in our gene therapy. It's proven already, but you still want to argue with me using religious elements and mythology. So make up your mind, you wanted to go scientific, so I took the debate scientific, and now you want to go back to religion? What science do you have to back up any of this? Viruses are science. It's a well known fact that viruses introduce new genetics. It's also a well known fact that mind viruses can alter DNA by influencing selection and other elements of a culture. You back it up with absolutely no science. I do not disagree that some people are more intelligent than others, but that has absolutely nothing to do with appearance. You cannot analyze a persons brain quality through their skin. The skin trait likely came about due to a viral infection of the skin, that removed or added color. If a virus for example removed the color from a black persons skin, that person would become white, and because a virus can alter a persons genetic code, all that persons children from that point on would be white. The same could have happened if we were originally white, and someone got infected and their skin turned black from a virus. This person would then have altered genetic code and all their children would inherit this "immunity" which gives them black skin. This is science, if you want to deny this, then it's as stupid as denying the fact that vaccines can cause you, your children, and so on, to be immune. It's also a proven fact that tribal people are less immune to viruses than European people, this is why when Europeans came to America, Native Americans got sick and died. It was because Europeans had more immunity, which also means Europeans were likely infected by a lot more viruses, and yeah the colder climate might have influenced it, but I doubt it. It's more that clear skin is likely the result of a virus. You just don't want to admit it because it ruins your religious mythology. That's BS. You don't make any fucking sense. Please explain to me how if all humans evolved from the same species, that somehow, they could just seperate into different species all by themselves? It's more likely that viruses caused our appearances to change. Why do some humans have long noses? To provide a defense/immunity to certain viruses which infects humans through the nose. Why do some humans have curly hair? To protect those humans from viruses that might have come from lice, or parasites which infected humans in that way. Why do some humans have different color eyes, hair, skin? Because different populations were infected with different viruses. Europeans were the population infected with the virus that made their skin clear. Africans were infected with the virus that made their skin dark. Asians were infected with the virus that made their skin yellow. Brown eyes and hair was the original hair color, but perhaps some people were infected and the virus turned their hair red, red being a hair color that is universal, like brown, across all races, it's likely a virus that infected a person and turned their hair to red. Blonde hair likely came way later because blonde hair is among the most rare. It was likely another virus that infected the red haired people to turn their hair from red to blonde. The same thing happened with eyes, a series of viral infections, that might have made a lot of people go blind, but made some people develop blue eyes instead, and this blue eye trait passed on as an immunity. What I'm saying all races formed as immunity to viruses. All appearances formed as immunity. The rest of what you talk about is completely pseudo-science, it's as much pseudo-science as the possibility that aliens landed and had sex with humans to create the white race. Your thinking is completely false. If your thinking was true, then someone who lifts weights should be able to alter their genetics permanently by doing so, so that through their suffering, their children will be stronger. It's completely bullshit. It's more likely that a virus will infect every human on the earth to make humans all have a certain immunity. We still see viruses now, we see them today, all over the world, and you still want to come with these bullshit theories? Every race has built empires, so what? Every race had had civilization. I don't see a difference between the brains of any race, nor do I see a difference in blood type, or organs. You can recieve blood from a black person and no, you will not be infected with black blood, and no, not all black people have sickle cell, but you are stupid enough to believe it aren't you? There are black and asian people with the exact same blood type as you. What does that tell you? I don't think war and domination have much to do with evolution, in fact it might have more to do with de-evolution, it might be slowing evolution down. To provide an example, if we face a huge virus and it alters genetics so that half the people on the planet suddenly gain a new mental ability, and these people also gain incredible aggression, this aggression virus could cause a gene mutation that promotes aggression and as a result promotes all wars of aggression. I guess you don't see the connection as to how a virus could make humans more aggressive. So what if aggression evolved from a virus?
I use compartmentalization all the time. I have to keep my philosophical meanderings separate from real life living, pragmatic decision-making and in relationships. For example, I do not believe in free will. I am a monist. I do not believe the mind is separate from the physical object that is my brain, which has a mass, weight, volume and density--like any other physical object. I believe if something happens to this physical object, it can have an impact on my consciousness. It can have an impact on how I think, how I feel and how I perceive. I am not separate from this clump of matter. This matter, this pattern makes me. The matter inside my brain, like all matter in this universe follows constant laws of physics. And they never deviate from them. The atoms on my brain do what they must do, according to the discrete laws of physics. . The neurons in my brain do what they must do, according to the discrete laws of physics. The neural networks in my brain do what they must do, according to the discrete laws of physics. My brain must do what it must do, according to the discrete laws of physics. Therefore, my mind must do what it must do, according to the discrete laws of physics. There is no choice. How can there be a choice? Try that for a thought experiment. How can universe exist in which its inhabitants have free will? How is that even conceivable? I am a robot, and so are all of you. However, in our day to day living it is not convenient to think that way. In my relationships I have to think of people as free and willing agents of their own. If there were no free will, think about how ethics would be different. If there is no choice, there is no culpability. It's not realistic to think in these terms in this reality. However, while for the most part I think of people as their own free agents, when it suits me, I think of them as mindless automatons. I remember reading that Einstein did this too. He said that he found it consoling to believe things are the way they must be when behavior modification and intervention is out of scope. Ultimately, we believe in what is convenient.
What if you could recieve knowledge or communication from the future, and it influences the information in your mind in a way which changes the physical nature of your brain? What do you say about quantum entanglement and it's effect on your physical brain?
As zephyr pointed out, he didn't define 1 as useful. If he or I had intended to 'define' it as that, we'd have used the word. You accuse me of twisting prose almost every post; and then do it yourself time and again to create a delusory basis for your arguements. On top of that, if you truly have to ask what the number 1 is useful for, then there need be no further indictation of your ignorance - whether it is innate or whether you need to self-impose it in order to continue this conversation. A moral standard having nothing to do with reason??? Hahahahaha! The only way you can come up with that brilliant little gem, is to assume that 'right' and 'moral standard' are both the same thing and then further stereotype both as being inviolate absolutes that have not arisen out of practical judgement themselves! You seem to have forgotten the entire discourse on practicality already.. I suppose its neccessary in order to maintain this charade of yours. You said that Zephyr and (by implication) I, defined it in order to make one 'argument.' - Now you are implying that we didn't, in order to make another 'argument.' This self-defeating audacity of these contradictions is amazing.. Once again, you fail to be consistant even within the space of a couple of paragraphs. WIll you respond to this by pretending such a contradiction didn't happen and demanding that I give you such a definition? I'll wait for this to do so, for the funniest part is that you have to come crawling back through hypocrisy, you have to contradict yourself YET AGAIN, in order to do so: For the THIRD time you have said that you are leaving/have left! What to do? Decision, decisions! Perhaps postpone till next year? It doesn't seem that logic, reason are good enough either. Hahahahahaha... here comes the invicible premise again; truly astonishing... Ohh my, its mutated. Perhaps not so invincible.. Unfortuantely, now it is just incomprehensibly stupid: Is the colour of a gun, when its pressed to the back of your head as deep and relevant to you as its shape? Is the colour of your blood as deep and relevant to you as it its quanity and its fluid flow, when its pumping from a severed artery? Is the colour of your words here, as relevant as their alternately stupid, fallacious and hypocritical arrangements? I contend that each is in practice, not so. For you, is the NEED (that you so deride) to survive (practically in the first two contexts and idealistically in the third) no more relevant than the equivocation of all the data? How do you escape from this one? I'm thinking monty python style. 'Brave sir robin ran away!' "I didn't!" 'Bravely ran away, away!' "I DID not!" Laugh.. it seems that the prior mutated question was too much for you to handle, here again you must pretend that I and others have absolutely discredited 'a sensual abstraction' by separating it from any context. I also haven't absolutely 'abstracted' any sense, if you are implying I have done so by that, then the sentence is a fallacy within a fallacy. By this, with what follows, you're implying that you have some concept of what would be better, do tell what that is.. The logical contradictions consituting most of the above excerpts and indeed a significant section of all your prior posts, are tallying up real fast.. If you're forced to admit those errors, its going to be pretty humiliating. Actually, at this point, I see little you CAN do - including doing nothing, though perhaps that is the least so - that isn't going to be humiliating.
TimeTraveler Reread what I said and this time take your head out of your ass and stop replacing religion with science. Science is neither infallible nor absolute and it certainly isn’t complete. Science is dependant on the culture it was spawned in and it serves social requirements. See how Bush censored insight into global warming and see how culture limits science in stem cell research. It makes you wonder what else is censored and culturally limited. An answer can be shaped by how one asks the question and a survey can be shaped by what answer one seeks to allow. Also, stop putting words in my mouth and projecting your prejudices upon me, and stop exaggerating what I say to construct a counterargument. Your comments concerning weight lifters are particularly entertaining and telling. You’ve understood nothing I’ve said if this is the argument you’ve come up with. Your comments on viruses were especially hilariously absurd. Please continue being you. The essays I’ve provided encompass my views on this matter. Reread them with an open mind and without a preconceived goal in mind. Your socially and culturally constructed prejudices are none of my concern – AND YOUR ENLIGHTENMENT EVEN LESS SO…
On Race In a world dominated by growing populations and diminishing resources, where space comes at a premium and more and more peoples are asked to coexist within smaller and smaller spaces, the need for equalitarian ethical systems becomes vital and essential to survival and continuing growth. Without it the inevitable conflict and implosion would result in a return to past conditions or in a period of chaos and deconstruction. It is, therefore, natural that ideologies and theologies that preach a harmonious coexistence and a passive demeanor are to appear first in societies and cultures where overpopulation forces a need for demureness and peacefulness. No surprise then that Buddhism and Hinduism were to come to be first in places such as India and China or that, later on, they would take hold, in a mutated and diluted form, in the west under the moniker of Christianity. Where open spaces and frontiers exist, all ideas of equalitarianism and altruism are blasphemous, whereas in environments with no such frontiers they become sacred and holy. We live in such a period of no frontiers and little open spaces. So, such ethical systems, as the before mentioned, are crucial in soothing over human distinctions and differences by finding commonalities with which each individual, if it is indoctrinated early on, must replace natural tendencies to perceive what is different from it as ‘not of its kind’ with an overarching morality that makes it perceive all as part of the same and all differences a matter of detail with no other significance. In crowded environments all deviations are swept under the carpet, they are steamrolled into conformity and ignored on principle. This is how stability and harmony are maintained and ensured, morality becoming the glue that keeps contradictory elements of differentiation in union and balance. Anything that differentiates or hints at any divergence from a norm or points to inferiority or superiority must be quelled and surpassed on moral, humanitarian grounds. In our modern world this flattening of humanity persists with the dominance of democratic, non-aggressive or passive-aggressive political, theological and ideological systems that is leading to the slow extermination of all divergent cultures, besides the dominant western, North-American one, appropriately called globalization {Americanization}. Any culture or ideal that preaches isolation or superiority or a desire to remain distinct must be eradicated in the name of continuing peace and prosperity. They call this the opening up of markets in a classic case of Orwellian linguistic distraction. Current events in the middle-east and elsewhere and the widespread clashes between civilizations that are occurring presently throughout the world can be seen under this light of forced conformity to a dominating ‘norm’, in this case exemplified by the single global superpower, but are also occurring between lesser secondary regional powers {China, India, Russia, an emerging Europe}. It is this trend of equalitarianism that is force-feeding us an ideal human condition where no physical or intellectual differences are easily accepted to mean anything relevant or decisive. Any differences in performance or behavior are easily explained away by blaming specific life events or special environmental conditions in the hope that an underlying pattern isn’t perceived or made known and so the sense of oneness and similarity isn’t disturbed or put into question. Where talents and strengths are awarded to the individual all weaknesses and failings are excused away by pointing to childhood circumstances or blaming it on this or that special circumstance, disease or syndrome. The ‘modern’ western disease of unbridled irresponsibility and the consistent unburdening of every individual from accountability concerning personal actions and behaviors are telling and the consequence of the extreme need to preserve the artificial sense of uniformity and oneness. This is more so the case in matters of race and color. I would admit that external physical traits do not necessarily mean a difference in intellect or in spirit but neither would I say that it doesn’t. What I would say is that physical characteristics do point to past environmental conditions that may have persisted over a period of time that resulted in physical alterations of appearance. But why is it that physical alterations exclude intellectual ones as well? We are all the sum of our pasts and it is this past that determines and limits our potentials in all areas of importance. It is true that each individual must be evaluated on his/her merits but it is also true that general physical commonalties do not exclude general mental commonalties. If it were not so then all science would be impossible and disciplines such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, biology etc. would be impossible. Also there is some confusion around the delineations of race, particularly in our present world of mixing and commingling, but nevertheless external discernable characteristics still prevail and are easily distinguishable. Although this assimilation is resulting in shades of racial characteristics and a resulting degree of differentiation much less distinguishable from past times, where geographical barriers and technological levels ensured racial isolation, it is still relatively easy to notice physical racial characteristics in specific humans that hint at ancestry and lineage. THESIS If we are to believe current anthropological theories, we are all descendant from an original species that came to be somewhere in Africa in the distant past. This ancestor of ours, eventually evolving into a homo-sapient, had the qualities necessary to become a dominating species, in its local setting, that inevitably lead to an unprecedented population explosion that forced migrations into new geographical areas of unclaimed territories. This forced expansion of human dominance pushed the periphery of this migration-wave into harsher environments and eventually resulted in an alteration of physical appearance. But why do we assume that the alteration was only limited to physicality? If, for example, long-term exposure to less extreme sunlight resulted in smaller melanin levels in the skin causing discoloration or a loss of pigmentation, why should we not also consider the possibility that other environmental circumstances may have not also resulted in other chemical physical alterations causing perhaps intellectual or psychological differences as well? Why? Because it is too controversial and disturbing to the status quo to do so, and so science, being dependant on funding from the system itself, limits its scope of speculation and exploration and pays lip-service to the powers that demand conformity and non-confrontation. The educational system becomes a disseminator of acceptable forms of knowledge that do not contradict the popular norms too much and a business more concerned with becoming self-sufficient, popular and wealthy than in nurturing thought and minds. But I digress. As human populations adapted to new inhospitable conditions and generations were raised under new weather and nutritional conditions, their outward manifestations also changed to mirror this environmental alteration. Meanwhile back in the original ancestral places of sub-Saharan Africa the alterations were not as necessary and so no great evolutionary changes happened, beyond the slow natural evolution caused by chance mutations and small climactic and social transformations. If diversity and challenge is the mother of modification then the lives, of these humans existing on the fringes and the frontiers of human expansion, were hard and unforgiving and they were pressured to become creative and cunning in order to survive, widening an ingenuity gap between them and those still populating areas that were more ‘natural’ and ‘comfortable’ for the human species. If we could study two twin brothers where one is forced to leave home and survive in the cold, cruel outside world while the other was allowed to continue existing in the comforts of his place of birth, then we can assume that if a decade later the two were to be reunited there would be a perceptible difference between the two. One, being challenged to survive or perish in circumstances it was not previously aware of, will exhibit the strength, wisdom, worldliness and cunning of one that has met a challenge and survived it while the second will exhibit the stagnating effects of remaining within the environment it was born and raised in. This separation and reunion can be said to have occurred in the human family. Centuries later, after a segment of humanity had been required to adapt to inhospitable challenging environments and after this had lead to the creation of great civilizations and cultures, the departed brothers returned to the home, this time as conquerors, explorers and dominators to find their siblings still in the same state they had left them in; stagnating in a pool of superstition and primitiveness that was the consequence of an absence of need. The historical events afterwards are all well known. The weak become fodder and the tools of the strong. It is true, as I said previously, that each individual must me measured using his/her personal merits on a case by case study but physical similarities do not exclude, but reversely include, the possibility of there being mental similarities as well between individuals that exhibit the same external characteristics or the same traits of pedigree. If dog pedigrees can be bred to behave in like manner with similar intellectual levels and physical traits, using only external cues, then why is this breeding not possible through more natural means? The easiest way to study a phenomenon isn’t to look back in time into its history or by speculating on what influenced what in what degree, but to study the final result and the conclusion of this historical voyage. Although racial qualities does not ensure levels of achievement it does determine level of potential achievement in the same way that being born to tall parents does not make certain the final height of the offspring but it determines the potential height if the environmental circumstances remain constant and generous.
Thank you, Satyr. You breathe vitality into this pitiful array of human beings. You are the only one who understands things as they are. Not as you wish things as they were. You are ultimately, unselfish.
