You seem to be ignoring me now, which is taking away most of my sadistic fun.. probably the best option for you - very practical. On the other hand, the de facto civility births the potential for genuinely thoughtful discussion, which while also pleasant to me, may or may not be to you, we shall see. Yes... They don't. The point is that the alterations are in varying proportion. When it comes to judging a persons individual character, skin colour is one of the least relevant proportions of the lot. When dividing this reality into self and environment, its clear logical, natural, that that which is most external to our self is our skin, that it is the prime mediator between 'outside' and 'inside.' Equally logically, naturally the brain is buried beneath the skin and still further shielded by thick bone, shutting down the influence of what is outside so as to limit it as closely as possible to those avenues of sense which it operates upon. Were our brain easily capable of changing our skin colour, as with some octopuses and chameleons, it would rank a hell of a lot higher on the list of things relevant to judging character. Being that it can't, a persons changing actions, begetting body language, spoken language etc etc.. are all far more useful in gauging character. It is easy then, to see why it is that within the brain the most extensive and relevant aspects of a persons individual character are found. Try changing that question to: "But why do I assume that we assume that the alteration was only limited to physicality." See the prior comments. There is nothing at all wrong with this section in itself. What is flawed, is your premise that total division of physical and intellectual self is the foundation of the 'politically correct' perspectives that you are lambasting. Had you not made that mistake and then arrogantly asserted its inherent validity, insulting me and others in the process, you could have spared yourself most of the confrontational dialog. If by final result you mean 'now, in the present moment.' Then I agree. There is no finality or conclusion here though.. its ongoing. You are aware of this, so I am surprised you used that terminology. Studying history in order to draw practical principles for application in the present may not always be easy, it is often very relevant and productive though. It may even be represented as extending the breadth of the 'now, the present moment' back over past time, in some indirect sense. Once again, the idea that is the level of potential achievement you refer to must be seen in context and with accurate proportion in order to be effectively applied to an individual. In terms of character, I don't know what 'height of potential' really means.. Could be taken in a number of ways, applied to a variety of extremes. In terms of intellectual prowess, genius is found throughout all races..Stupidity is too found throughout all races. The gap between low and high here is vast.. Trying to compare, interracially, the recorded heights of potential brings no clarity at all, let alone what may be there and unrecorded, untapped.. I don't know what other individual characteristics you may be refering to. Trying to practically impose 'racially determined limits of potential' upon individuals for effective judgement, seems like a dead end. Persevering with such poor measures of a man seems that it will lead only to mass division and eventually mass conflict, between large sections of humanity.. There are many things leading in that direction already.. so for humanity, as a race of individuals, holding onto such as this one, is stupid. Hence the advent of the 'politically correct' ideology.
I suppose my response and the poll results are a complete coincidence. I suppose that's what you would like to believe. How propitious.
We can communicate faster than light. We can literally recieve communications from infinite light years away, which to us would be the future.
I don't care about the poll, or what your opinion was.. it was the last part of your reply that was highly amusing in context of everything up till this point, I get the impression that you didn't read the whole thread, otherwise it should be obvious.
Satyr;1286977 THESIS That is a statement we all agree on. It's backed up by science. We also agree with this comment, as this is also backed up by science. This is where I begin to disagree. I disagree with this for sure. First you do not explain the mechanism for why skin color changed. I used the virus example because it explains the mechanism for change. A virus does and can change psychology, it can make people aggressive, it can make people passive, it can have all sorts of effects on the brain, as can parasites, and as can it have effects on the skin. However, your assumption that a virus would selectively infect only individuals with clear skin is highly unlikely. A mind altering virus, which may have infected humanity and made humans more aggressive, might have originated in Europe, but it definately did not stay there, because there is no uniquely European brain or psychological trait. Every type of intelligence or psychological trait held by Europeans is held by every other group. So if a virus caused Europeans to develop some sort of urge to conquer, this virus also infected many others, and whatever it is, is likely in all of our bloodlines now. We share almost all of our genes, because there have been periods of time when Europeans were in the middle east, living next to Africans, and Jews, and Asians, and just living in that environment which formed due to efficiency of trade routes, would have altered your bloodline. So you ignore the fact that races have been mixing all along, and if it were viruses that created races, immunity and race mixing has made it so that all of us share the gene changes, or at least the vast majority of us. You told me you are against the idea of global warming. You told me that culture is more important than science. I don't think the majority of Americans are against the idea that global warming is real. It might not be official that it is real, but it's very difficult to dispute the science of it. What is a nurturing thought? Where do you come up with these phrases? It's almost as if you are trying to frame it so that nurturing young minds is bad. There is no evidence that nutrition habits influence evolution. There is no evidence that if you eat certain foods or if you sit in the rain long enough that you'll have genetic changes. How do you know that? How do you figure that? That's ridiculous. In Africa, a tropical environment, dark skin and curly hair likely resulted from viruses and parasites in that environment. There is more environmental diversity and more diversity of lifeforms in Africa than in Europe. Today there are more viruses in Africa than in Europe, and science has proven that there are more genetic variety aka races, in Africa than any other place on planet earth. Please do research on genetics before you come up with a thesis. You are making statements like this which you have no way to back up. You assume that how people live influences evolution. It's not how people live that influences evolution, it's everything from viruses, to how people think, to mating habits. There may have been more viral infections in Europe, there was the black plague in Europe, and many other viruses that nearly wiped Europe out. These viruses might have been the primary cause of genetic change, combined with religion and the influence it had on mating habits. That is a big if. According to your theory, people living in Africa now, and living in ghettos now, and in poor and harsh environments now, are the most evolved humans on the planet. I don't think evolution is so clear cut. There are more animal species in Africa than in Europe. There were more dangers on Africa than in Europe. Europe had cold weather, but once again the parts of Europe that had the coldest weather, like Russia where theres all this snow, are you really making the case that somehow the cold weather and snow made Russians more evolved than some Europeans who were in warmer climates? I don't follow that theory. I don't think it's that simple. If people in Africa evolved dark skin and curly hair, that is evolution too. Raised in? BY WHAT? God? I don't think it's that simple. It's not that simple. Africa had Egyptian civilization around the same time Rome was built. Tribes of Africans have conquered parts of Europe, it's a fact that is in the history book for all to see. So you are talking about recent history, skipping all the world history that lead up to that point. You make claims such as, there was no genius in Africa, why don't you try building a pyramid. Maybe the difference is, in Africa, Africans were busy conquering non human animals, like Lions, Tigers, Rhinos, Snakes and other types of diverse creatures, while in other places there was less life and so humans turned on each other to conquer self. It might be as simple as that. It might also be that there were times when Africans built civilizations, and conquered and enslaved people, but simply came to the conclusion that it was not the best way to live. In fact, China seemed to come to similar conclusions. It's not like the whole world were conquerers, it was rare back then to be like that. Humans are not dogs. Wouldn't the world be simple if you could judge people simply by how they look? Humans come in two types. Wild and domesticated. The wild usually end up in prison, and the domesticated usually end up in an office somewhere. If you believe that, then Einstein and Tesla are the smartest race. Shouldn't the smartest of each appearance type, mate with the smartest?
It really tickles me how you deceptively ignore the obvious. Ya know, sometimes the obvious is true and sometimes it isn't. In this case it is. Subsahara africa, you can't put two and two together to conclude why negroes have dark skin and thick hair. When I go out in the sun too long, I tend to tan, I don't know about you, maybe you are a freak. Also, if you've ever been to europe it is the cloudiest and rainiest place at least I've ever been. It is mild to cold weather. Hmmm....little sunlight, less melanin.....how about that?? How about asians, extreme cold and windy, sometimes very hot climate. Epicanthic fold to protect from wind, light pigment, dark hair to protect from sun glare, smaller body size to conserve heat. By the way lions and tigers can MATE and produce OFFSPRING and their offspring can REPRODUCE. They are distant cousins though not the same. You are dishonest and COMPARTMENTALIZE to justify your cherry-picked arguments. You need to realize you just negated your own argument because you might as well say a negroid, caucasian, and mongoloid are three different species if you were to remain intellectually consistent. You really are dumb or a liar.
Personally I like marshmallows. Often much can be said with few words. Have you tested my critical thinking skills or are you psychic?
TimeTravele You pathetic, moronic imbecile, talking to you is a complete waste of time and an exercise in tolerance and patience. Your stupidity is so overwhelmingly thick that one has to be entertained by it so as to make responding to you possible. Listen retard. One more time. If, moron, you have no idea how evolution and natural selection works then what the hell are you doing here? If you cannot grasp how chance mutations become propagated when they offer survival benefits or how suffering and challenges result in growth (No pain no gain, imbecile!!! Deal with it.), then your thickness is your problem. In fact your stupidity is related to your environment and lack of experience with the very things I describe. You demented, obtuseness, do you even understand the concept of dependence and collusion? Do you even understand what institutionalization is? You are the quintessential example of a sheltered mind. You over-shelter a mind and it remains naïve and weak and obtuse, just like you are. A muscle grows, retard, when it experiences stress. A mind grows, moron, when it experiences stress. It either breaks or grows. I'll post a little something for you in relation to this. Not that it'll do much good but someone else might read it. You stupid, simpleton. Need forces change - something doesn’t just change; change has to offer an advantage, it has to be necessary. A moron, like you, doesn’t have to think, because mommy and daddy and the system protect it and guarantees its basic survival needs and protect it from its own stupidity. So your brain atrophies, just like muscle atrophies, when it isn’t used, and you turn into the retard that you are. Fuckwad…basic logic. If we are both born in the same house, a house that is warm and which our species has evolved in for millennia, and one day you push me out of the house because there isn’t enough room or food, you remain safe and comfortable in the environment you evolved to survive within and I am pushed in more alien inhospitable environments. Then I either survive and grow, outside the house, building or dominating my own house, or I perish never to return again. Meanwhile, you imbecile, have no reason to adapt or to think, except for the slight environmental alterations that might occur over the years. I then have kids and they inherit the genes that made my survival possible within the house I was forces to dominate or tolerate. My kids then return to the original house, finding your kids munching on chips and watching Oprah Winfrey, fat and lazy and stupid, because they’ve inherited your obtuseness and they had no reason to change, and they kick they’re fucking asses. What just occurred, imbecile? Now factor in centuries of natural selection in which individuals either survive and procreate or perish, passing on the attributes that made them successful to the next generations and resulting in physiological and, yes, mental changes and you’ve got races. A race, simply signifies a population group that has experienced a period of genetic isolation and that has adapted to its environmental conditions. If this isolation persists for a long enough period you get a new species, a splintering, a genetic divergence. In the case of humans their domination over the environments they were pushed into, shortened this genetic isolation period so a complete rift was not reached. What little genetic divergence occurred was enough to create different physical and, yes, mental characteristics – sub-groupings -but not a completely different species. :bugeye: No really....Are you retarded? Viruses? Genes are ...viruses? Skin pigmentation is a viral condition? What the fuck are you babbling about?! You stupid pathetic moron. This is what you’ve understood, thus far? Oi!!!! You imbecile evolution happens over long periods of time, not over a decade or a century. Yes, if the individuals in the “ghettos” continue experiencing the same environmental conditions and they adapt accordingly and they interbreed, imbecile, their ancestors should surpass their current masters. This is the relationship between Master<->Slave – read some Nietzsche while you’re at it. The key concept here, idiot, genetic isolation. Of course you do not “follow” the reasoning. You are, yourself, a product of a pampering, sheltering, privileged, equalitarian environment. This is called decadence. Your stupidity has no real affect on you. Your survival is relatively ensured and your safety maintained by a system of institutions. Thusly you can afford to remain obtuse and ignorant. In fact the system benefits from your stupidity, just like an ant colony benefits from the individual ant’s lack of character and independence of thought and reasoning power. It becomes a blind and dumb automaton of systemic control. Just like you are increasingly becoming. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Why don't I just punch a brick wall? You lobotomized monkey. When I say Africans I do not mean the political, human invention called the continent of Africa. I mean the negro. Were Egyptians Negros? Try the Zulu empire….and we know what great human achievements that empire gave humanity. When I say Asian, do I include in that Indians as a racial group? The human ancestral lands were further south where the weather is warmer and a species like ours could forage for food. Egyptians are part of the peripheral environments. No...really....what's your I.Q.? Yes, maybe Africans are that lost Empire of Atlantis. They reached a level of intellectual sophistication, by hunting tigers (we all know how dominant Africans were when European men returned as slave traders) that they surpassed human frailties and are probably more advanced than us. The fact that their SAT scores have to be explained and educational standards must be lowered to accommodate them – unlike other groups like Koreans, let’s say – speaks to their advanced intellect. Thank you, imbecile, for supporting my thesis by example No, humans are not dogs; they are special, like you are. Wow! That’s a piece of very sophisticated and deep reasoning. Yes, unfortunately most of them will have to mate with your kind. See where the problem rests? francois Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Take that back, sir!! I am nothing if not selfish. I would give no part of me for free…certainly not to these types of failed genetics. It now seems that this moron TheMosaicMan has changed from someone presenting numerous relevant “points” to someone that hardly disagrees with me. See how evolution works. Weakness confronts strength trying to overpower it, thinking it is superior to it, huffing and puffing, full of bravado and pretence…and it fails. Then it slowly gets infected by strength’s example, slowly altering its perspective, yet never admitting it to save its feeble self-esteem, and adapts or alters, adopting strength’s methods and strategies and …opinions. See how what started as a denial that color means anything has now turned to ‘it doesn’t man that much’. See how the weak are attracted to what assails their weakness – becoming both shamed and vengeful and inspired, challenged. They now nip at its feet, trying to get its attention and any attention received – even an insult or a slap – becomes a gift; proof that it matters.
ASCETICISM First Proposition Let us consider the universe and existence from a purely human perspective. It may be true that the labels of ‘evil/negative’ and ‘good/positive’ have no real meaning other than as a subjective interpretation of events and phenomena from an individual or communal point of view. What is ‘good’ for you may be ‘evil’ for me, and vice versa, but there are certain general ideas that we agree, as living, conscious beings with shared interests, as to their nature. For instance most human beings will concur that darkness, cold, and death are negative forces whereas light, heat, and life are positive ones. {Let us ignore the fact that the labels can be reversed without losing any of the meaning so that we don’t get bogged down with semantics} Taking this shared humanistic perspective as a given and leaving behind more objective philosophical interpretations, we notice that the universe, as it relates to us, is mostly a negative place. Darkness, cold, and death predominate as the most common state of things but also need no effort to exist; they just are. In other words, they appear to be the ‘normal’ condition of the universe in general. Keeping this in mind we must suppose that negativity is the rule of the universe while positive forces are the exception to this rule. This because light, heat and life, as well as all other forces associated with positive ideas, require a sacrifice, a consumption and an effort to come to be and to continue being. When this effort, sacrifice and consumption ceases the universe returns to its natural, previous condition. The universe, in essence, is a place, as perceived by human minds, where positive forces push back the negative fabric in small temporary pockets and establish a momentary equilibrium in which consciousness is made possible. Man perceives this momentary balance of forces as order and mistakenly assumes that it is the general condition of the entire universe itself. Most go even further and suppose a dominant positive essence as the creating force of the universe, whereas in fact the opposite is more likely to be true. In the balance of positive and negative forces and in this constant battle of ‘the positive’ to gain a foothold in a ‘negative’ universe, change becomes a fundamental part of survival and makes evolution a necessary mechanism of continued existence in a universe striving to destroy life and to return to its normal condition of lifelessness as it strives to return to darkness and cold. From this first proposition, it is easy to conclude that life is, in fact, a constant striving and suffering caused by this pushing back of forces that seek to return to pre-existing circumstances. As Schopenhauer put it: “Life is need and need is suffering; therefore life is suffering” It was Schopenhauer also that defined pleasure as a negative idea, since it is merely the absence of suffering and a momentary reprieve from the natural state of consciousness. In other words death and pleasure are synonyms. Indeed life rewards with survival all those that have paid their dues to her in misery and action and embellishes, those of her creations, with superiority that have exerted and struggled on her behalf. It is in this continuous fight against death that life becomes creative, adaptive and ascends to higher and more complicated constructs. Within this interpretation of the universe lies the true spirit of asceticism and its real worth to man. Second Proposition Most, due to dictionary definitions and religious extremism, associate asceticism with a complete rejection of pleasure and luxury and a total denial of life itself. But I will propose a new perspective on asceticism that may prove advantageous and attractive to all seeking personal empowerment. It is true that Buddhism and Christianity have taught an extreme level of self-denial and many other religions and philosophies advocate abstinence as a form of escapism from life’s trappings and temptations, but for me one need not become so severe in order to benefit from asceticism’s merits. Asceticism, as I see it, is more akin to athleticism, where both strengthen an individual through pain and suffering but need only be practiced consistently, not continuously, in order to profit from them. Both athleticism and asceticism require self-control and an exposure to unwanted and mostly undeserved pain and suffering through which a body and a mind gain strength, discipline and stamina, necessary throughout life and under all circumstances. It isn’t a mistake to believe that misery is the sources of all mental and physical beauty given that nature denounces stagnation as death itself and imposes a constant striving and changing through the promise of pleasure. It may be disturbing for us to acknowledge that nature abhors conformity and lethargy and so rewards struggle and exertion with superiority, that is easily distinguishable in all those exposed to physical and mental suffering and becomes most beneficial to an individual who experiences and survives adversity, but it cannot be denied. In contrast the effects of comfort and overindulgence can also be plainly noticeable in individuals lacking any contact with suffering and effort; their intellectual naiveté and insecure, over-optimism will bear witness to their limited experiences in a dangerous and indifferent universe, just as their softness of muscle tone and inability to endure physical hardship will reveal their limited experience with physical effort and exertion. How appropriate that the Greek word ασκησης-askisis[exercise]- is used to denote athleticism but is also the root word for asceticism which denotes a mental exercise or an exertion of the mind. For what athleticism is for the body, asceticism is for the mind; alike but different only in the focus of their disciplines; interdependent but mutually exclusive in their areas of influence. To better clarify the relationship between asceticism and athleticism it may be profitable to juxtapose the two. Athleticism is the training of the body. It hardens flabbiness and denies lethargy through which a body is weakened and becomes soft and vulnerable to external forces and phenomena. Asceticism is the training of the mind. It invokes mental discipline, focuses energies, and denies apathy and pleasure through which a mind becomes complacent and susceptible to external temptations. Athleticism does not require a continuous exertion, even if it was possible, but through temporary strain the body becomes more efficient even at rest. Similarly asceticism does not require continuous self-denial, but through momentary or selective resistance the mind gains discipline and resolve that become helpful even when indulging in pleasure or giving in to need. The effects of athleticism are hard to ignore since they appear in the empirical world accessible to all, through the senses, equally; acknowledging the benefits of exercise and physical effort and the aesthetically beautiful physical form it leads to cannot be argued away no matter how much we wish to do so. Reversely, the effects of asceticism are hard to prove since they appear in the mental world accessibly only, through introspection, to the individual; so acknowledging the benefits of cerebral exercise and mental effort and the intellectual symmetry it leads to cannot be confidently argued for. Despite this, I believe, all can recognize that denial of the will creates a mental framework by which an individual becomes a master of his own being and not merely an instrument of instinctual desire. A man devoid of all self-restraint and discipline becomes a victim of his own emotions and cravings. Like a rudderless ship he is cast to-and-fro by any subtle wind and becomes a man with no direction and no purpose; a helpless victim of his own whims and a vulnerable prey to clever predators. For the ship to be controlled a strong rudder is needed and an even stronger captain to direct it. This rudder is mans mind and the captain must be mans intellect. Final Proposition All men seek to minimize their exposure to pain and suffering and it is therefore a contradiction of goals that this very compulsion is detrimental to survival and the continued promise of pleasure. This conundrum is what plagues human existence in its entirety. We reach for happiness and comfort and yet it is this very striving that causes the opposite condition of suffering and discomfort; we dream of an absence of need and an existence devoid of all torment and yet its realization is the very definition of death; we dream of power and self-reliance and yet we must give up power and become dependant to achieve it. The Greeks understood the irony of existence and they fully expressed it in their art, in their philosophy and in their total acceptance of it as a part of human existence. Man is in a very precarious position; not fully intellectual, not completely instinctual. The choice arises in every thinking mans life as to what path he will choose: will he give in to his instincts and live entirely within the dictations of his nature as an animal, where the mind is simply the facilitator of instinctual desire or will he deny both pain and pleasure and become pure intellect devoid of all need and in complete control of his being? But there is a third, more reasonable, choice. A choice embraced by the Greeks and now offered, through Nietzsche, by them to us: will we embrace both pain and pleasure as parts of our total being and focus our efforts in enjoying life’s pleasures and experiencing the rapture of consciousness and yet will we not forget that it is suffering that elevates and strengthens us and it is this payment, which we pay willingly, that makes us more than just animals and ennobles us before a universe wanting to degrade, embarrass and destroy us? Whether we like it or not, suffering and pain are the natural participants in life’s experiment. We either recognize them as such, and use them to our advantage or we spend a lifetime running from them into futility. It is this aspect of life’s truth that most spend their entire lives escaping from and in the process become weak, gullible, naïve, soft and easily manipulated. How unfortunate for them that even the temporary escape from life’s truth cannot save them from its eventual inevitability. The signs of human disorderly existence are everywhere plain to see; from the lack of self-discipline in nutritional consumption that leads to obesity and disease to the absence of sexual self-control that leads to promiscuity and immaturity. The ‘easy way’ is searched for by all those lacking the discipline to go at it the ‘hard way’ and the realization comes to them too late, that there is no ‘easy way’ and those offering it are either con-artists or manipulators. The controlled exposure to suffering, made possible through athleticism, creates a strong and durable body that will be ready, in a time of need, to meet life’s unforeseen challenges and come out of every battle, a survivor. It will reveal itself to all in its harmony, symmetry and beauty; it will speak of its superiority in graceful movement and efficiency. It will be something to admire and inspire. But more importantly, the controlled exposure to suffering and pain through asceticism creates a strong and durable mind that will be easily adaptable to a variation of environments and challenges and come out of every confrontation the dominator. It will reveal itself, more subtly than the body but no less magnificently, in its harmony, order, and virtue; it will speak of its superiority with noble ideals and strength of will. It will be something to admire and inspire.
Some people burn, some people tan, what is your point? The simple fact is, skin color has nothing to do with sunlight, otherwise you'd see white people getting tans that refuse to go away. So far that never seems to happen, for anyone, so skin is genetic and has nothing to do with how much time you spend in sunlight. If you think it's all about sunlight, then you also would believe that a person born of two black parents could turn white just by avoiding sunlight. I think it's silly to believe such a goofy hypothesis, but thats up to you. This is a perfect example of mythology. No one knows why asians have epicanthic folds. My opinion is that was the result of a virus too, just like all the other variations. I don't believe in spontaneously generated mutants, I believe everything is cause and effect because science works through cause and effect. I don't believe that if you just put a snail in the a controlled environment that the snail will spontangeously evolve new features. There is no scientific evidence to prove this to be true. There is no scientific evidence to prove that life can evolve from goo, or from chemicals, or any o the bullshit arguements people have come up with as ot why things are. It's in my opinion only scientifically proven that gene transfer takes place through viral infection. All the other shit you talk about is mythology, because you have no science to prove that every genetic change is useful. Some genetic changes might not be useful for anything, in fact most genetic changes likely are not useful. This means all the different appearance have no function whatsoever, and just were freak accidents of nature. If you have a big nose, it's because you have an immunity, likely caused by a virus that made peoples nose grow bigger than usual. If you have genetic changes, then there must be an observable mechanism to cause it, and I've never observed ANYONE spontaniously mutate and grow wings and fly. If you can show me a spontangeous mutation that is not a cancer, and you can show me this mechanism in action then I'll take the hypothesis more seriously, otherwise it's complete bullshit and it's easier to prove aliens invented us. What the?! Alright, show me a ligar. I've never seen one before.
Apologies if I am repeating what you have said - I have read the propositions and conveying my impressions as they relate to the thread theme... First proposition: Existential Homoeostasis - yes its easy to forget the sacrifices made by our ancestors in creating a niche and allowing us to maintain homoeostasis through culturally-acquired vertical transmission...and life requires the constant maintenance of homoeostasis which is often stressful and there may be both a conscious and unconscious realization of death as a pleasurable termination of the struggle for survival. Second Proposition: Agree about the unsuitedness of traditional asceticism to post-modern existence (here I find simple exercises based on Tai Chi Gung strengthen body and mind whilst enervating homoeostatic stressors): the mix of emotion and unguarded intellect are humankind's nemesis. Final Proposition: Pleasure/pain principle? Organisms that do not achieve a homoeostatic equilibrium often do not survive to reproduce and humans are no exception. Accepting the world as it is, with good and bad events specific to our time and locale, is the sanest route....we cannot change that which we cannot effect and it is better to regard the autonomy of negatives with humour and the ability to be flexible whenever possible. I have enjoyed reading your views on asceticism and it has renewed my interest particularly with regard to evolutionary cosmology...I hope my comments have been constructive and I can vouch for the panacea you suggest in athleticism...from one who knows the 'loneliness' of the long-distance runner.
Thanks for giving my views the sanctioning effect of a formal terminology. Might I also suggest a general reading of Hellenism – especially the pre-Socratic ones.
What the hell is a "chance" mutation? There is no "chance" in science, it's all cause and effect. So what mechanisms cause the mutations? If you just say it's random, random is equal to saying God did it. Time is change. Science has proven this. Nothing ever stays the same throughout time, and need has nothing to do with it. The earth changed, became compatible with life, but the earth did not need to change, time is change and with time comes change for all. Roaches have changed, and need has little to do with that, and while roaches may change more slowly in most areas, the human genetically is more complicated than the roach. If you examine the amount of genes you can see for yourself how many changes our species has gone through which had nothing to do with need. So no, I don't think mutations occur due to needs, some mutations can extinct a species. You don't get it, the system was created by people who could communicate and design it, obviously not someone such as yourself because you communicate in an uncivilized manner. If everyone is a moron, a fool, etc, how exactly could you agree or even debate anything? What if it's not either or? What if you survive today only to perish tomorrow? If what you say is true, then you'd have evolved to your environment so much that you'd be unable to function in any other environment, it would be like removing a fish from it's water. I don't think humans adapted to the environment as much as humans had to adapt to other humans. Humans mastered the environment before they left Africa, and by the time they left Africa, they were confident enough that they could master the entire planet and all the life on it. They were right, but it happened when they were in Africa, around the time language was invented. When language was invented humans developed self awareness that was higher than that of other animals, and communication was the key to survival, not some new extra mutations, just the ability to communicate and cooperate was all it took. The way you talk to people, I find it hard to believe you would have been a communicative genius. You might be a good hunter, but if you cannot communicate, you won't be leader of the tribe. No, we have a life now that is just as harsh as it was back then. The difference is, we are smarter now, we learned to write books, so that knowledge was kept from generation to generation. We formed societies, and religions, and created money so we could organize our minds in the most efficient way. We invented schools so we could teach the youth how to navigate in the new economic environment, but the risk still exists. Poverty still exists, homelessness still exists, violence, crime, diseases, and dangerous still exist, even if we cause most of it. So you are saying, that violent aggression is the highest form of human evolution? You really think that humans exist to dominate the universe and each other? In order for races to evolve that way, and if you actually believe the white race is the most advanced, then it means more white people had to die and suffer than any other race, just to get to that point. Now you tell me, if Africans and other races decided they did not want to suffer, how is that not an enlightened decision? Why exactly do you think it's good and noble to be aggressive? With my virus hypothesis I proved there has never been a period of genetic isolation. Genetic isolation is impossible. If genetic isolation is impossible, then what you say makes no sense, but lets assume it's possible. If genetic isolation is possible you still offer no scientific proof that new species spontaneously and randomly invent themselves through isolation alone. Until you can show it in a lab, it does not exist. And if you tell me it would take a million years for the experiment to prove it, it does not exist anymore than the chance that aliens created the human race and won't be coming back for a million years to prove it. A complete rift? Show me evidence that this can happen. Show me a species that exists right now that is in the process of a rift. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it happens like how you say it does. I think viruses slowly introduce entirely new sets of genes, and these genes become races, and if they mate with each other they become pedigree's like what you called the dogs, and these pedigrees continue to get infected with viruses while mating in isolation, over time they might meet with another pedigree that was in the same process and isolation but a different breed, they mix and become something new, and this process goes on for thousands of years until the new mixes/races/breeds are unrecognizeable from the originals. Basically, I don't think one species can transform into another completely different species, I think species mix and upgrade essentially forever, but a dog is a dog. There are different breeds of dog, this is not the same as different species of dog. These different breeds of dog are not even the same as different races. A different bread means both a different appearance and a different nature. Humans have the same nature across the different appearances, so we are not even as diverse genetically as the dog species. This might be, because the dog species is older than our species. You assume people with similar mental characteristics did not mate, and create new breeds onward. You assume that among the so called races, that there is a shared mental characteristic, but it might be that smart people are a seperate race from stupid people across all the races. This is gene therapy, and this is proven science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy The rest, are just mythology which cannot be proven in any sorta lab experiments anymore than the myth that life came from goo soup and somehow became this. I don't think we will ever know how it happened, it might have come from another planet, on an astroid. To think that we can use mythology to talk about evolution, turns the subject into religion and not science. If you cannot show it to me in a lab experiment, it's not science. If you cannot prove it in a lab test, it does not exist as science. That is silly. But ok if you want to believe that. I see no proof that evolution takes place in isolation. I do not believe that evolution is randomly generated by sunlight, or heat, or water. I believe only certain things can trigger it, like viruses and things which we have proven in gene therapy. Are you advocating that we go back to cave man status and like the rest of the wild animals? Our institutions are what seperate man from beast. Why don't you go eat some cheese? Of course Egyptians were Negros, were Romans not the same as modern Europeans or do you consider them Jews? Were Asians not in China? Africans/negros/black people, were and are in Africa, and were there in Egypt as you can see on the paintings, statues, and in the Roman and Greek text. Not to mention that they checked out the mummies and saw that the bodys had dark skin. But I know it's a popular fetish for racist types to want to believe that Egypt and Pyramids were created by space aliens, or that somehow white people built Egypt, but to anyone who is not racist it looks like jealousy. Rome was what we can call a white civilization, Egypt was definately a negro civilization, not just due to the location, but due to the fact that the bloodline of the pharoahs were dark skinned and looked like modern negroes/black people look today. Look at King Tut, was he white? In fact, look at all the kings of Egypt, none of them were white except Cleopatra, The Zulu tribe or the empire? I don't remember the zulus being an empire. You are trapped in your ideology. Try to develop an open mind. Higher than yours, but if you can ignore the writings of William James Sidis who had an IQ of over 200, what difference does it make if my IQ is higher than yours too? If you take IQ so seriously, read the writings of people with high IQ's and see what they have to say on this. I never said Africans were as good at hunting as Europeans. That might have been the only difference. Perhaps Europeans were more used to hunting other humans, and perhaps Africans were busy hunting lower lifeforms and preying on animals. In the end, Europeans were the best hunters/warriors on the planet. That much is not debateable by anyone. Where do you get the idea that all black people have low SAT scores? You do realize there are black people in Harvard right now, and Yale, and Stanford, and Cal-Tech, and MIT, and every other ivy league school. You do realize there are black people who recieve perfect scores, and that some are A students, and so on and so forth. I don't see your point, your point would only make sense if there were no black people in college at all. There are more black people in college than Korean people, and this might be due to the fact that there are more black people in this country than Asian, but thats beside the point. The point is, education has nothing to do with race.
Thanks for the pointer, Satyr - I've read a little about the Greeks mainly philosophy of science...time for some expansion.... I think you have made a good argument; also in accordance with your proposals you recognise change and this validates your reappraisal of the subject.
You explain the phenomenon which everyone, believe it or not pretty much already knows because we live in it every day but you never explain a solution or tell what type of world you want to live in. One can only guess it would be a 'take no prisoners' predatorial one where all real and perceived weakness would be extinguished. Well, that is unrealistic. Because life is a constant turnover of strength gained form weakness. The other side of the coin is weakness is a twofold problem. Those who contribute to the failings of the failure also may be a weakness, did you consider that? To ignore or not address the inability of the so-called victim to overcome the vices, irresponsibility and weaknesses of others is to be hypocritical. In the end you would still just be proliferating another weakness with the same problem because vice is also a form of weakness, the cure not in sight. You have to address the weakness of everyone. That is why in human civilization we have laws to not only protect the weak but to protect the STRONG, and to protect ourselves from the weaknesses of eachother. Do you think the skinny nerd who may one day become a doctor being bullied by a bulky aggressive schoolmate with an iq of a donut is superior because it can pound the kid into the ground?? Do you think superior and inferior is so easily black and white? Do you think pure aggressiveness which actually belies a weakness, that is why it is aggressive is actually strong? It's context. Also the ability to meet another halfway, to cooperate, self-control, even compassion or empathy is not a weakness but a strength. You cannot build a society or a civilization without it. Even if you were to live in a purely predatorial society, it would first degenerate and then the process to "coexist" would just start again. There is no one without weakness from passivity to utter ruthlessness. To need others is to be weak and all life depends on others or something.
So Satyr is not selfish and he is just perfect and understands things as they are?? Uhuh. There is no one who is not selfish. How does he understand things as they are when no one really understands things period? they just do the best they can. Did you know satyr may not seem to compartmentalize maybe not intentionally but he does? did you know he focuses on one compartment or what he knows to explain his understanding of the universe? EVERYONE does because we don't know everything!
You are assuming that everyone thinks this way - 'we' refers to a specific cultural viewpoint....and in fairness to Satyr he has given a solution in his Final Proposal (above). Well organised sport can be rough but this doesn't necessarily apply to athleticism as Satyr suggested. I dispute this - I think law protects the hegemony and corporate dominance before the individual. I think cooperation is one basis for human equilibrium in the environment.
All laws protect the corporations but not the individual?? Do you advocate we go back to wearing a holster and pistol and be cowboys? Is that a realistic proposal? An ascetic military society to protect from what?? space aliens?? I agree a more practical life is healthier. But so much aggression and defense and sleeping with one eye open and less living, huh? He says there is no excuse for weakness and then turns around and says environment shapes us. Isn't that a bit hypocritical, not only that, this type of thinking is just a way for the strengths of one to not be challenged by or deal with their own weaknesses in another department. It's called having it your way. What is the matter with cooperation? Depending on the legitmate reasons the refusal of cooperation can be either to protect a strength or to protect a weakness.
