It all began with a farm...

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by WANDERER, Mar 7, 2005.

  1. WANDERER Banned Banned

    It is evident that when we speak about human behavior, limiting our evaluations to biological mechanisms and genetic inheritance fails to encompass the more complicated mechanisms of environmental influences and the affects of learning in the process.

    In the debate of nurture versus nature, the thing that becomes apparent is that both participate in the production of an individual – although to what degree each does is debatable - and that both operate on distinctly different speeds.

    Where environments can alter in a comparatively short period of time genetic adaptation, to said environments, lags behind.
    One can argue that present behavioral patterns are the product of past environments that no longer apply today. Which would explain why some individuals feel a discordance between who they are and who they are asked to be and between what they are inclined to do and what they are allowed to.

    “For example, cultural information can be passed from parent to offspring (vertical transmission), between peers (horizontal) or from teacher to pupil (oblique), whereas genetic information is only ever transmitted vertically. One of the consequences of this is that it speeds up the pace of cultural evolution compared to genetic evolution.”
    Human Evolutionary Psychology – Louis Barrett, Robin Dunbar, John Lycett

    This could partly explain neurosis, sexual deviation and a variety of other human ailments, based on the assumption that present day human beings must repress and contain psychological inclinations that have been produced in relation to past environments and which are no longer tolerable or advantageous under the present circumstances.
    Freud warned us about the consequences of repression and suppression and about the redirected releases this can result in.

    It would also be helpful to note that some traits might be produces as an adaptation to a particular environment but their persistence through time may not be due to the same factors. That is, why a trait comes to be and why it continues to be might be due to different reasons.

    This could also result in the human tendency towards self-contradiction and the absurdity of modern living, in general.

    Malik argues, “…we humans have not simply been dropped into an alien environment. We created that environment….If the brain is ‘wired up’ to create modernity, why is it not wired up to cope with it?” making a good counterargument.

    Yet, in my mind, the creation has surpassed the creator. What started off as the product of the human mind in search for survival advantages in a hostile world, has taken on a life of its own.
    Institutions, cultures, societies have become entities in their own right, independent of the participants themselves. Entities made up of individual human beings but, oftentimes, in confrontation with them. Entities that now threaten the very concept of individuality.

    This natural universal tendency towards unification and assimilation is what forces a resistance to it, as a reaction creates an equal and opposite reaction.
    But the force and permanence of this resistance is determined by purely individual attributes. Where some adapt and consider the trade-off of independence and integrity for existence a fair one, others might consider it a price too high to pay, opting out of it completely or choosing to linger in the periphery.

    Here the evolutionary mechanisms of natural selection and fitness within particular environments can be witnessed most clearly.
    Those adapted to have a fitness advantage for environments that no longer exist, find it hard to participate in environments where the notion of fitness has been radically mutated and where their physical and intellectual traits are considered more a fault than a virtue.
    While those that have been fortunate or that possess the ‘right’ psychological predispositions to adapt to the current environment with little resistance or difficulty will flourish and prosper, creating a new batch of selected characteristics that will be passed down to individuals that may exist in circumstances where these same traits no longer offer advantage or that may lead to the diminishment of the individual altogether.

    Current human anxieties concerning this loss of control over ones creation or over ones self is exemplified in popular art through sci-fi imaginings of technology running amuck or artificial mechanoids dominating mankind by becoming conscious and willful.
    One can also see this caveat mirrored in creationist myths about a loss of paradise and in philosophical arguments concerning the death of God and the diminishment of mankind through slave morality and herd psychology.

    But the problem is a real one.
    What began as a means of protecting the individual has resulted in a civilization more concerned with the protection of itself, despite the individual.
    The basic mental and physical health of the species no longer matters but only in relation to its service to the ‘super-organism’, as Baudrillard would put it.
    Mental, physical, psychological deficiencies are tolerated and allowed to reproduce, just as long as they do not threaten or oppose the system itself. In fact, defects that were anathema in past environments are now desirable traits to be propagated and nurtured.

    Low self-esteem, an absence of spirit, mental dullness, gullibility, egocentrism, monetary ambition, greed, gluttony, an absence of free thought are some of the attributes beneficial to the current cultural infrastructure and, for this reason, they dominate the social scene.

    Stupidity and superficiality, were once punished with a quick death, but now they become characteristics that will ensure a harmonious assimilation and participation within the whole and so are rewarded with whatever comforts, our modern world deems essential and desirable.
    It is here that we will find the foundations of modern civilization.
    Here amongst the bourgeoisie.

    Communists were right to focus their wrath against this essential element of modern western civilization. If they wished to usurp the balances of power and redefine human inter-relations, this was a necessary step; where they erred was in placing the blame on the concept of ownership and to accuse it of being the root of all evil.

    Ownership and all the implications derived from it was certainly a human creation based on delusion and arrogance and it was certainly a concept essential to the creation of stable, multifarious societies, but it was only symptom of a far greater problem.

    The real culprit was the transcending drive of all imperfection to assimilate, to integrate and to unite, which has produced civilization, the ideals of god and love and that will, inevitably, lead to the extinction of individuality as we know it.

    You see, it all began with a farm….
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Perfect Masturbation without hands Registered Senior Member

    When societies and cultures expand and mix rapidly they do create coexistences in which the builders maintain the mechanism.
    It’s ‘simply’ a matter of over crowding any given medium- something becomes too much or too grand, and it diminishes meanings that were other vice considered worthy and solid.

    The correlation between similar desires/preferences which differ only periodically causes societies to build new layers in top of the resting ones. And when a desire or a need for the resting layers awakes, then the layers become somewhat united with the consciousness of the mechanism, and are created again, coexisting with themselves but at the same time they are new and improved. And via enforcing to this scorn the evolutionary progress between man and his society grows gaps. Nothing can evolve if they keep returning to old discarded methods and reenacting excerpts of it’s past.

    People are inconsistent bastards. The human mind is superficial In terms of maintaining connections that exist between yourself, your fellowship and the society.
    The conjoined links interact and mold the culture and society to fit the constrictor’s (or ‘s) needs.
    And there has to be a medium which separates the individual from the society. A contrast that does not promote itself to be dominant nor is it a breading ground for any idealism.

    Often though the mind is involved in maintaining a motion of progress in this rat race differ drastically, this causes inconsistency to reign.

    Japan is a good example of this superficial construct. They adapted traits from the westerners and rather than remodeling their society via rationalistic planning, they blended the adapted attributes with a disorganized desire to please the new friends.
    And now when the industrial revolution is blooming and the cities start reminding you of those sci-fi techno-fantasy novels, you can see some truly fucked up people who are sacrificed to make the commune function.

    People sleep in a few square-meter sleeping pod’s because they were working 18 hours, and have no time to go home before another day at the office begins. A girl is trained to be perfect at dancing, gymnastics, choreography etc... from the age of two forwards, just to perform at a single show; one mans birthday party who happens to belong to a family with respected ancestry. The girl did perform, at the age of 18 (if I remember correctly), and after that she was discarded. It’s a culture that can without a blink sacrifice individuals for unity.

    Transcendence of the masses is nothing without individuality. How far can a symbiosis of truculent workers and conscious society go without a commandant? This commandant is individuality.

    The atmosphere of values and loyalty can not sustain itself if lacking solidarity, and solidarity will not evolve without isolated individuals discovering the powers of collective interests; this and class cohesion work against the future with techno-punk societies.

    I’m moving in the same lines as you. Nice post.
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2005
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Not always.
    I have come to appreciate the natural human need for guidance and leadership as a result of character or the absence of it.

    I can easily discern if each particular individual I meet is a leader type or a follower, from the beginning.
    I don’t know how specific characteristics, such as age, gender, race, intelligence, height, weight and so on participate in the creation of leader or follower minds, but I do know there’s a connection there and I have my theories.

    I can only surmise that those with a follower psychology would find little wrong with authority or with social and cultural demands. They would actually feel more secure and comfortable being controlled by higher powers.
    In contrast leader types would have a difficult time suppressing their ego or their pride or their individuality sufficiently to accommodate external authority and would resent all such attempts.

    Now, what exactly differentiates a leader type or an independent minded, purely individualistic type from the follower conformist one is an interesting question.
    I believe both inclinations coexist within each human being but that the more docile follower psychology predates any leadership manifestations that might occur as the mind develops.

    This natural manifestation of need to dominate or to become a holder of ones own destiny, finds obstacles in these modern times.
    Whereas, in the past, we can imagine the conflict this would result in, today the leadership position is an institution defended by a system.
    In contrast to the past or to smaller human social units, today the leader does not define the position but the position defines the leader.

    Collective interests become diluted when the collective is enlarged.

    We can imagine an individual sharing interests with a group or a tribe of hundreds. We can even imagine an individual sharing interests with a city-state.
    But as the population and the collective is increased in size self-interests shared decrease.

    The only solution to this inverse relation is to establish artificial interests and convince the collective that they all share in them.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. -Bob- Insipid Fool Registered Senior Member

    In my opinion, the distinction is precisely the same as the old distinction between matter and form. The matter (what Aristotle recognized as potentiality), or 'nature', governs the creation of an individual like medium governs a work of art. But with most works of art, the crude matter is quite meaningless unless it is shaped, and unless those potentialities become manifest. As the Confucians pointed out, man must be cultivated.


    This is nothing new. Your idea of a lost world where individuals supposedly mattered more, is an illusion. Humans have been an intensely social creature from the start. Have you ever observed an Ape colony?

    There's little evidence to back up the notion that characteristics of herd-minded individuals become selected. First of all, you're contradicting yourself by now maintaining that we are in fact evolving towards a more 'domesticated' human. If we truly did, then there would be no contradiction in human society as you noted before. As you note below, there are many kinds of humans (leaders, followers), that continue to reproduce and there is no evidence of a selection process.

    It could have just as easily began to protect the tribe. You don't know, rather you are being led along by your theories, and molding reality to fit with them.

    Yet the ideology of 'individualism' continues to manifest itself in our literature, our culture. There are probably more humans who possess this tendency than there ever was at any point in human history (if only because of the explosion in population). I think it is the opposite way around, actually. You could just as easily say that has been moving from the tribe to a system that favors the 'individual' (at least more so now than it has in the past).

    More likely, these 'attributes' are facets of our culture. We are bred and trained from birth to exemplify them. They are less likely to be aquired characteristics. Once again you point to nature where the answer more easily lies in nurture.

    Wait... the real culprit is what now? Culture (god), or genetics (human domestication)?

    Ownership is the essence of human 'creation'. Or else the 'individual' is owned by society.
  8. Perfect Masturbation without hands Registered Senior Member

    Yes, leaders and followers. Though, one must not confuse these two to the ‘weak and the strong’, as you implied.

    But I would not categorize followers into an echelon, nor to the comfortable state of being controlled by higher powers, though they do fill into the fashion better than the leader types but not fully. The status of an follower is motivated by the simplest of human attributes; mans ability to adapt trough habituation into his surroundings, be it nature or complex a social structure.

    When a leader type who finds it difficult to accommodate to external authority finds himself under the influences of such factors- he becomes disoriented, it causes his attitudes towards the medium in question to grow into a disorganized and irritated state. Unless he has taken control of his surroundings, in that case he must have a mental state of an follower coexisting with the leader mentality. Those who can’t adapt with their surroundings thrive for power and control, never ceasing to go further. You go trough your life searching but never finding what you’re looking for, nor are you fitting in. Though, not fitting into any specifications or stereotypes enforces the individuality- Jawohl mein commandant!

    The follower and the leader (passive and aggressive) both follow the same principles; the other just chooses to undermine his surroundings to some extent (unless he is the authority). Not a lack of respect, but, like you said, it is a question of ego and pride. They will not submit into something not tested and implemented by themselves. A state of mind, that endures rather than secedes, and does not accept.

    Yeah, representatives of a dominant, and conscious infrastructure. Any army, for example, will not see anything else than stereotypes in command.

    As the population grows, there is a change of this happening. However the amount of individuals practicing many different functions adds diverse interests in this mix also. And as the collective increases, the number of interests increase as well. The correlation between the two is not as negative as it might seem.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2005
  9. Xev Registered Senior Member

    You must forgive him - he's imbibed the cultural notion of how "rebellion is kewl" and anyone who isn't a kewl rebellious person is a follower-sheep.

    Real life is much more complex.

    Actually the ability to give fealty can take extrordinary strength.
    Take a group of soldiers. No matter how great their military prowess, it takes the organizational genius of a commander for that prowess to be effective.

    However, it's mostly irrelevent in the modern world. If Friedrich the Great were alive today he'd be pushing paper at some management job.
    Or perhaps he'd say "fuck this" and run off to play the flute.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Anyways, today leadership is simply a matter of having social status.
    The person, having gone through whatever rigors of selection, slips on a uniform and is accorded respect equivalent to the role portrayed.
    Ability has precious little to do with it -- you ought to meet my boss!

    Furthermore, leading/following is not innate.
    It is true that there are people with a higher or lower ability to impose their aesthetic vision on their surroundings. Nature is more plastic to such people, they are more creative than most.

    It is also true that there are some people more social, more compromising and submissive to the will of others because they value acceptance more highly.

    However, simple place on a hierarchy of command is no judge of worth.

    Nor is screaming "I'm not a slave to a God that doesn't exist" ad-nauseaum any indication of freedom. If anything, it's just the opposite. A person who is secure in their sense of self-determination does not need to dwell endlessly on such things.

    Very well put.
    It can be a lonely task.
  10. -Bob- Insipid Fool Registered Senior Member

    The best leader is one who intimately knows and cares for his followers, and the best followers are ones who would not blindly follow their leader. So yes, it is very complex.

    It certainly isn't simply a matter of ubermen imposing their will on domesticated humans.
  11. Xev Registered Senior Member

    It's not even a matter of "best"
    It's just the way things are.
    People follow their rational self-interest.


    As for ubermensch, I think of ubermensch more as a potential higher species of man. Not a leader!
    Living amoung people...
    It is a matter of imposing your will, yes to some degree.
    But then even breathing is a matter of imposing your will.

    Hey get out and be with people! Have a few Blue Lagoons while you're at it.

    *Points at avatar*

    Life isn't a Schopenhaurean nightmare in which everyone is squabbling with and trying to dominate each other.

    Some people are Schopenhaurean nightmares who squabble and try to dominate you.

    So what! Conflict is the heart of life. Glory in it! Be glad that they give you that chance to test your will.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2005
  12. WANDERER Banned Banned

    And I use that moniker with caution.

    Never claimed it was something new nor did I claim that it was restricted to one species.
    I state that it’s a natural occurrence.

    If you want to restrict discussion to what is new then 99% of the posts and the threads here should be erased and we should only talk about current events and newspaper articles...Bob.

    Well, perhaps we have stumbled upon something “new” after all.
    It only seems sensible though that characteristics that enhance socialization should be promoted within social structures.

    Forgive me for trying to remain consistent.

    I would assume that if we go back far enough the individual is what we will find.
    If we go far back a single cell, then a combination of cells into a multi-celled entity, then something more complicated until we reach a human being.
    From there we can assume that the process continues into new associations and unifications.

    Are you saying that tribes predate the individuals that make them up?
    Some sort of divine intervention…Just poof and there we have a tribe.

    Adam and Eve out of thin air.

    But where did the cells come from? Why do they behave in that way?
    How did they come to perform the tasks required by the body?

    Were they….perhaps…individual entities?

    Naaaaah…..God created man.
    Thanks …..Bob!

    Here is where you are led astray and you buy into the rhetoric and the politics.

    If mankind is evolving emotionally, spiritually and intellectually slower than the environments he exists within - culminating in a modern world where information, innovation and technology radically alter the environment with ever-growing speeds - then it would be logical to assume that remnants of the past should persist through mythology and ideology to placate the wanton heart.

    For example …Bob: We can say that the human body evolved in more austere environments, so when the environment altered to include accessible fats, sugars and proteins, obesity was a result of the discordance.
    Now, the aesthetic ideal of a well-muscled, toned body persist, despite of growing bellies and double-chins.

    Because instinctually the ideal remains in the subconscious, as a representation of health and virility.

    Sure current western ideologies glorify the individual, but only as a means of maintaining the illusion of free-thought and independence and only as far as the individual is a service to the community.
    Wake up...Bob.

    That’s what I said.
    Please try to follow.

    The environment forces ‘attributes’ and behaviors upon the individual through nurture, which nature has yet to adapt the individual to.
    So we have the conflict between memes and genes...Bob.

    You have it the wrong way around…Bob.
    Ownership is a human invention that doesn’t correspond to reality.
    Man owns nothing, not even his physical manifestation.
    It’s all on lease.

    But how else would you engage an individual within stable, stagnate unities and how do you make him invest in the very process that enslaves him?
    You first invent monogamy and because husbandry forces human law to enforce order and to reward the individual for his services, ownership comes to be, then morality and so on.

    As for who is the “culprit now?” -figure it out for yourself.
    It’s written down, so you can reread it carefully and at your leisure.

    Not as complex as you imply...Bob.
    Human beings are very simple creatures if you ignore their words and watch their actions.
    If human beings were as complicated as you think then marketing campaigns and political propaganda would not be as effective as it is.

    I, for one, never made any such statement.
    I would say rather that I was insinuating the opposite of that. If anything my post is a eulogy to the uberman.

    I never said that supermen were leading the herd.
    I was saying the reverse….Bob.

    Until a new frontier is opened up and made economical, that is.

    I agree, but I do not differentiate between ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ as clearly as you imply.
    Every evaluation is a comparison and every value is of degree.

    We could say that man is, by his very nature weak and a follower of natures rules upon which he adds his own and so becomes a leader in relation to other humans or to other living entities or to what parts of nature he comes to dominate.
    This natural human attribute to adapt and to socialize is only proof of weakness and fallibility, within the given environment, which forces cooperation and alliances.
    We could say that a man is a leader of men or beasts but still a follower of nature or that he is strong in relation to other humans or other creatures but still weak in relation to the universe that shaped him.

    That is why leaders are forced into subordinate behaviours.
    Survival takes precedence over all other considerations, most often but not always.

    That is why leaders today go through a caldron of tests and evaluations by the masses and by the system they are to serve.
    He must speak the right words and act in particular acceptable ways, if he is to be tolerated as a representation of institutional power.
    He is humiliated and humbled so as to make his eventual dominance more acceptable.
    He must be chosen and promoted by a series of intervening levels of power, before he is deemed reliable.
    It would appear that the less character an individual has from the get go the more likely he is to adopt what character he is supposed to have to succeed or he must have enough guile and acting ability to give off the illusion, if nothing else.

    Perhaps not.
    What inevitably happens is that sub-groups begin forming within the larger group.
    Cliques, so to speak.

    These sub-groupings begin acting as individual entities within the environment that enabled them to become.
    They become organism in their own right.
    And the process repeats.

    Not really.
    If anything this stereotype is un-cool.
    I know overcoming the rebel image of the motorcycle dude with the leather jacket or the one with the dark clothes, the long hair and the satanic symbols on his t-shirt, is hard to do, but please try.

    There’s nothing kewl about being a minority or being excluded. I would say the entire notion of coolness is one that appeals to the majority, which is the antithesis of rebelliousness.

    Then I’m sure you’ve understood it.

    The point being?

    In what way is what you just said “more complicated” than what I said?

    And what is creativity a product of?

    Never said it was.
    There are other factors, such as inheritance, that come into play.
    A by-product of ownership.

    Although I can see how speaking about Death-Metal can be a more productive way to spend my free time, I certainly never claimed to be free.

    The fact that I’m not free forces me to speculate about what jails me.

    Are you insinuating that you are rebellious?

    Maybe we can talk about something real interesting now, like mutilation or obscure Japanese actors or who the handsomest men in the world are or maybe we can dare speak about banning Xev, once more.

    There’s a very easy way of avoiding the same subjects and tedious conversations: Ignore them and move on.

    Participating in a subject and then criticizing how interesting it is, is a good way of making an ass of yourself.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2005
  13. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Wanderer, are you sure you don't over-apply black eyeliner and listen to Gothic-Industrial music?

    Ever watch MTV?
    Maybe not for your generation, but I know that it is for mine.
    Punk rawk! Fuck society! Nonconformity!

    I prefer to live it, understanding being the point at which thinking and doing meet.

    I don't know.
    Intelligence, spatial awareness, ability to think in a non-linear manner, tolerence, acuteness of perception.
    All rooted in the brain.
    Some brains are more developed in this than others.
    Way outside my area of expertise.

    Well, I'd rather be carousing with a couple friends and a Finntroll cd than sitting in my dark little room moping about how much a slave I am.

    But my intention was not to compare hypothetical ways of spending one's free time.

    Rebellious implies that I am in bondage.
    I am neither.
    I accept certain things, I deny others.
    This is not rebellion, it's the natural way of life.
  14. -Bob- Insipid Fool Registered Senior Member

    It seems sensible indeed. Essentially, the genetic code of every human being is designed to be social. However, your insinuation (as far as my puny brain can understand it) that human society 'evolves' its members by selecting social characteristics has no backing. Human society would be no different for its selection than the tribe, in fact the phenomena of 'natural selection' has disappeared in general. Show me evidence that the genetic code has changed.

    Yes, your argument is valid. At one time, life-forms were individual, pathetic little cells. Then they formed multicellular organisms. At some later time, organisms were individual, pathetic little worms. Then they began to live socially and in herds.

    And likewise, a lonely human is nothing but a pathetic pink little shit without society to back him up. He's got no claws; He's got no sharp teeth. He's smart as hell but he can't think up everything at once.

    He's evolved up from little furry rat-creatures; distinguished by their ability to live in a swarm and sucking their milk from tits instead of an egg.


    Is your argument that we are in a process of natural selection, or that this natural selection has taken place already? As I've pointed out above, if society naturally selects traits then we wouldn't be experiencing the conflict between nature and nurture. Our nature would have already evolved (the birth of civilization being 10,000 years ago) into that of domesticated animals. Our cows and chickens seem to have evolved these traits much quicker (nearly instantaneously in comparison to us). Why have we not experienced similar changes in our makeup as they have?

    Do you claim that the individual is only useful, when he helps nobody but himself? That his 'free-thought and independence' are only valid as far as he refrains from using it to benefit others?

    What the hell is there for us to do outside of society? Make sand castles? Read to ourselves? Wait no.... you need someone to write the book. Sit in the cave and admire our own reflection? Or play the flute as Xev says?

    How do you explain the relative freedom you enjoy as a citizen of the United States? The sheer fact that you can speak against your leader without having your tongue cut off or worse?

    Do you know what they did to the 'individual' in Ancient Mayan society? They tied his hands to his feet so that he was in the shape of a ball, took him to the top of the temple, and rolled him down the steps.

    Is it all part of the conspiracy to enslave you further? Just a devious plot?

    I understand that part. I'm smart!

    You've only explained it a million times. I finally got it!

    Ownership is a human invention, but it does correspond to reality. Its similar to the concept of human rights, or individuality. But at the same time, all of those things are quite useful and they do 'correspond' to reality (just not in the sense of a primitive 'correspondence theory'), insofar as they capture the essence of a certain process, or mimic it.

    Would you rather that the individual just 'share' his creations, products, and aquisitions with society? Or that they demand their right to it, and demand that the individual create more? Why is that not enslavement?

    More importantly, what do you think ownership is? That might be a good place to start.

    You claimed you could instantly identify 'leaders' and 'followers'. That was all I was referring to. Leaders are naturally leading the herd.

    How can sheep-men lead anyone? You merely claim that the ubermen are being bred from existence due to their uselessness.
  15. WANDERER Banned Banned


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Would you like me to conduct research and present my evidence in a decade or two?

    When direct observation is impossible or difficult we observe the consequences and deduce the possible explanations.

    “….the phenomenon of natural selection has disappeared…” !!!!!!

    Then why is everyone going to the gym?
    Why is everyone after money?

    Human society doesn’t “evolve” its members, Bob.

    A society has norms, rules, beliefs and ideals.
    It embeds these within every individual that is born within it and it forces the rest to adapt to its laws and aesthetic and moral ideals.
    This, in turn, leads to success within the system, which leads to sexual advantage, which leads to offspring, which leads to the propagation of the characteristics that made the individual able to adapt or submit to the rules, moral and laws, in the first place.
    Natural selection, Bob.


    So, you are saying that evolution is a one time occurrence and that it stops after a while?

    We haven’t?

    I think you missed my point about discordance and different evolutionary speeds.

    That’s the definition of an individual….Bob.

    By helping others he’s helping himself or else there would be no “helping others” to begin with…Bob.

    The fact that you cannot imagine life as being relevant outside a social group is part of your “makeup” that’s evolved over time.

    Culture is only possible through unities.
    I’m not arguing against all social constructs.

    Don’t ever insult me like that!!

    I explain it as being impotent, and therefore that why it is tolerated.
    Criticism is allowed, when it is confined within certain limits. When criticism goes beyond these limits and threatens the whole, then it is not tolerated.

    Criticizing “my leader” is irrelevant when the institution is never questioned.
    Attack the president all you want, but attack the presidency and see what happens.
    I bet you can’t even imagine doing so, being such a good little sheep, Bob.

    You know why that is, Bob?
    It’s because back then dissention and individual resistance mattered to the whole.
    A single individual had more social weight and so his voice and his acts had more substance and contained a higher threat.

    Today, the individual is nothing.
    So he/she can be tolerated and his/her yapping and bitching is ignored, if it remains limited to small unorganized groups.

    No Bob, this is the best of all possible worlds and you, my friend, are truly free.

    What a nice example of Bob, you are.

    And what happens to the individual under these “useful” constructs?
    Does he, perchance, become a gatekeeper of his wealth and a gatherer of material?
    Does he become an upkeep mechanism for the very things, he supposedly, owns?
    Does he become a victim of his greed and a servant to his possessions?

    How does one share what is not his?

    You are using current economic structures to evaluate possible past or future economic structures.

    A myth based on the importance of posterity and driven by the natural instinct to horde and to control.

    There is no ownership.
    Everything you think is yours you will give back or give away.
    It’s an extension of genetic inheritance which surprisingly has the reverse effect from what was intended.
    Where it was supposed to offer advantage to ones offspring by making them more fit within these economic structures, it actually creates pampered, naïve, gullible, morons, that can never appreciate what they have and never earn what they are given.

    Possessing a leader psychology doesn’t automatically mean that you will lead or that you will want to lead.
    It just means that it is less likely that you will accept external authority with ease.

    Not today so much.
    Today or in more complicated social structures, the institution takes up the position of alpha male, so as to alleviate some of the competition, and individuals gain power by proxy, by imitating or possessing the traits necessary for them to adapt to institutional demands.

    Yes, if a meme redefines what values are considered superior or advantageous.
  16. -Bob- Insipid Fool Registered Senior Member

    No, but at present your argument is not well justified. And the sad fact is, that its difficult to know these things for sure unless you do conduct research.

    Natural selection singles out certain characteristics in a harsh environment. At present, humans are in an easy environment. The result is, that everyone just breeds equally and the genetic code changes little. You can go to the gym all you want; but a fat cow will breed just as much. Then that fat cow might have a skinny kid.

    As far as I understand it, the genetic code of today is nearly identical to that of prehistoric man. Very little has changed.

    Isn't that what you are saying?

    Success within the system does not necessarily translate to breeding success. Furthermore, there's no evidence that the system strictly selects in the ways that you claim it does. And in any case, its idiotic to list social success as an indicator of docility, stupidity and laziness.

    What you are saying amounts to nothing more than: "smart people don't get laid, so smart people are dying off". Its quite laughable.

    Don't you love armchair evolutionary psychology?

    Cows and chickens have evolved very little from the time they were first domesticated. That is because there is little pressure to select precise characteristics any more.

    Cockroaches, or crocodiles for instance, haven't changed for millions of years. Why?


    Claiming that culture evolved faster than genetics, or what?

    The definition of an individual is that there is an element of separation maintained. That does not translate into total separation. For intance: An individual cell. An individual ant.

    He helps himself, sure. But your argument before was that the Western ideology of the individual merely existed to benefit the system at the expense of him. Clearly, it exists so that the individual can benefit himself and society at the same time. And there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

    Oh, I can imagine it, thats the whole problem. I just don't prefer it.

    [/quote]Culture is only possible through unities.
    I’m not arguing against all social constructs. [/quote]

    All of that is irrelevant to my point. Despite the fact that you don't have the freedom to individually destroy your government (if you did, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place), you nevertheless enjoy more basic individual freedoms here.

    You can drown yourself in beer.
    You can be gay or staight.
    You can gain wealth and prestige.
    You can be a bohemian artist.
    You have 300 television channels to choose freely.

    What more could a man want?

    But because the social system had absolute power over him, his greater social weight was made even less effective.

    Meanwhile in America, we have a system where no blood needs to be spilled in order to change the government. The system depends, as you so duly noted, on we being happy little sheep. But most of us like it. If we didn't, I imagine things might change.

    I never said that. I'm only talking in relative terms here.

    Thank you, I try to be a good Bob.

    For instance, why would I write a book if I knew someone else would take my work and take credit for it? Or why would I harvest fruit if I knew I wouldn't get to eat them?

    Ownership is the only real way that the individual can use his society to benefit himself as you noted above.

    Its only an approximation of nature. Nothing like ownership exists in the natural world, save that the pidgeon who gets to the crumb first gets to eat it. But its a very good, useful approximation.

    My evaluation is based on use. Ownership decides who gets to use what. Someone eats the fruit. Someone uses the car. Someone lives in the house. Who? The person with ultimate control.

    You don't need fancy abstractions to understand it. At one time, it was as simple as violence. Ownership is the meat that you are willing to defend, because you killed it.
  17. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Is not personal observation, research?
    Or should I begin fundraising, followed by years of statistics to satisfy your need?

    Genetic codes change slowly, Bob!
    Memetic codes change fast.
    That was my point.

    Whether the environment is easy or hard doesn’t matter, what matters is that it changes and that it forces an adaptation.

    I’m saying species evolve is response to environments, when said environments demand an adaptation or when the species is threatened.

    I didn’t say laziness.

    But let us take the bee, as an example.

    We can envision an insect in the past, from which the bee evolved, which was not social.

    Some environmental threat forced it into a community.

    Now, for every individual bee to function and to be harmonious within the community the earlier insect’s independence and selfishness and hostility had to be suppressed and selected out of the bee.
    Do you see?
    Participating in groups demands a suppression of certain hostile, selfish drives, creating a more docile individual.
    The larger the group the more docile the individual must be within it, the more tolerant.

    In time and after many generations the traits that make it functioning are promoted while those that threaten its participation are eradicated or diverted.

    You are putting words into my mouth to create an artificial argument against me.
    I never made such a statement.

    Getting laid and procreating aren’t always connected


    Because genetic alterations only happen when environmental pressures necessitate them.
    Crocodiles didn’t need to evolve in response to the altering environments, either because the environment did not alter enough to warrant an adaptation or the way it altered didn’t threaten the crocodile.

    We can say that the difference in food abundance of today’s environments to the past creates the problem of cholesterol, heart disease, obesity and a variety of other connected ailments because the body has evolved for more austere times.
    If present circumstances persist through time, we can say that mankind will either have to evolve to deal with the threat, learn to control himself or compensate using technological and medical solutions, which in turn will lead to cultural and physical alterations.

    Exactly, and the larger the separation the more individual the creature, in question.
    The smaller the separation the less of an individual you become.

    Not when the reciprocity is balanced.
    But I perceive it to be unbalanced.
    More is asked for than is returned.

    And why is that?

    A big screen T.V. and a six-pack.
    You got me...Bob.

    That's why you are Bob.

    Why would you even want to write a book or pick more fruit than you can eat?

    And now instead of violence what methods are being used to accomplish this?
  18. Perfect Masturbation without hands Registered Senior Member

    Yes, but you assume the progress of the groups is horizontal. I’m seeing it to be more vertical in this instance.
    It’s like a pancake widening and widening, not growing in thickness.
    People are creative which leads to new alignments of ideas. Even though you’re right about subgroups emerging, I don’t see it as an endless loop that gives birth to the same ideas over and over again.

    This is true to some extent. Though, I can’t really see how people who see nature to be more plastic are more creative than most.

    For example, the golden cut. It presents itself in nature everywhere, and in order to take benefit and impose it to your views, one must be familiar and functional with ones surroundings. And as it might seem analytical to use formulas like ‘1.61 to 1’ in arts, it does no good to any artist unless the artist appreciates the influences he has absorbed to be something more than just the means to an end.

    There has to be enigmatic ambience to it. But you are right that the ability to impose aesthetics to ones surroundings do say a lot about the person’s mentality.

    Chopin, for example, did not force his aesthetics; in fact, he disliked large concerts and preferred intimacy. What a fucking sheep he was- har har. He wasn’t an ambitious man; he was a follower that acknowledged the dilemma that resides in absorbing aesthetics. Chopin says to his patriarch student; “You will become talented as soon as you are heard in the English or Austrian embassies”.

    You are considering those to be basic individual freedoms?
    Fuck bob. Fuck!

    Those are choices (which are not even real, just made to seem that way so can celebrate a false belief that you, or your life, has any meaning) offered to you by authorities.

    You know wander.. The above is this;
    gone wrong.

    Bob, you’re fitting ‘concrete’ evidence that only you consider to be the truth into a speculative, remote conversation which speaks in general terms about the affects and attributes of structures and theories which contemplate the “might’s” and “consider this’s” rather than screech “american is not like that LOL”

    No, the person who interacts with social environment gets the fruit; ownership has nothing to do with it.

    You ask me to give you a fruit and I will; you have just interacted with social environment.

    There are neither ownerships nor ultimate controls that will run over the consensus between definitions and interpretations of man, there are views for situations- and emphasis on the situation.
  19. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Here Bob is a good example of how individuals are sacrificed for genes and memes.

    The mind striving for independence through understanding but his nature forcing him into relationships and actions that accomplish the reverse.

    You see Bob, sex is a good example of how species takes precedence over the individual and how the mind finds this abhorrent on some level, even if it is also drawn to its promised pleasures.
    Pleasure and pain being just another natural mechanism of persuasion.

    That’s why Bob, you will always be Bob.
    And thank goodness for that.

    I wasn’t thinking about ideas repeating themselves actually.

    I was thinking along the lines of a sub-grouping, if it becomes successful, becoming a group that eventually grows to the point where it begins repressing the individuals within it, even if it started as a reaction against this.
    Consider the case of Democracy, its birth and its present.
    Then new sub-sub-groups emerge within it, assuming that the original mega-group still exists and hasn’t been replaced by this growing sub-group.

    The process is unceasing and repetitive.

    A very convoluted sentence but accurate, if I understood it well enough.

    You see Bob has taken value and success to mean what his meme told him it is.
    He sees the tree and wants to own it, instead of just picking its fruit.

    He does this because he fears someone might prevent him from doing it in the future; someone stronger and smarter than him.
    So, he supports a system that offers him rights to the tree, if he adheres to his end of the bargain and serves it in return, and then takes these rights to be God given or evidence of his quality.
    Bob’s funny.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2005
  20. -Bob- Insipid Fool Registered Senior Member

    Personal observation? What, have you observed the behavior of prehistoric man? Have you observed his genetic code? How the hell can you know that? How can you isolate genetic predispositions from merely memetic ones?

    And my point is that the change is most likely imperceptible, and negligable. Furthermore, there is no single overwhelming selection factor. It could take a million years before the human race morphs into a real creature that is 'dominated' by his institutions (assuming that there is any selection). And in fifty years, none of it will matter because genetic engineering will come into play.

    The environment does not demand an adaptation. Humans are already proficient at being sociable creatures. See my point?

    Present day human species experience very little demands or threats from their environment. Besides, my own observations contradict your claim. As far as I can tell, plenty of nasty, hostile and selfish people continue to reproduce.

    Maybe we should round up the more docile people, and kill them. Or at least sterilize them.

    It is a form of mental laziness that you speak of.

    That's very true.

    Actually, ants are quite ferocious. While they are hive-minded, this also translates into an individual fearlessness. That is why ants are more courageous, more willing to enter battle than other insects (spiders for instance). That's because they don't have to worry about their individual lives. Especially the warrior castes.

    I like watching ants, I have a fascination with them.

    Although I don't believe that the size of the group matters much in the human case. In fact, I could just as easily say the opposite. A tribe or a family, can be more 'close-knit' and its members more loyal to each other than a large, complex society.

    At the same time that the individual carries less weight in the group, his 'selfish and hostile' behavior is less of a threat to it. The group would simply be so large and impervious to his nastiness that he wouldn't matter. Maybe it might even learn to use his individuality, both benefitting him and itself (hint hint).

    What??? lol. I guess you could squirt some jism up your wife's pussy with a turkey baster, but otherwise I'd hazard a guess that these things are usually connected.

    Crocodiles can thrive in many changing environments, as can roaches. Its only because the environment is not hostile to them (being very successful creatures), that they don't need to evolve. And humans are not presently experiencing such a pressure. We have it the easiest of any species.

    You mean like the Atkins diet? (chuckle)

    Right. And in relation to the original point, Western society glorifies the separation of the individual. Does the fact that the society benefits from this individuality (production, entrepeneurship, invention, arts) contradict it? No. Society itself might become enriched and strengthened by individuality, the same way that nature is strengthened by competition between species and diverse ecosystems are more flexible.

    Do you understand the principle of specialization? For example, compare a cell in the human body to an ameoba. Compared to other ameobas, each 'individual', tho he is independent, is exactly the same. That is because his meagre constitution allows for little variation on the theme. In contrast, a human cell might come in many shapes and sizes. Yet it is more dependent on the whole.

    It is the same with humans Wanderer. Face it. The more you love your neighbor, the more you love him and kiss him, the more of an individual you are. Alone, you won't have time to differentiate. You won't have the ability to specialize and gain knowledge. You will be alone, identical to all the other ameobas.

    And my point is, that modern society at least gives more to the individual, and we are not somehow evolving in the opposite direction.

    Why? Humans love the products of society, like an insect thrives in the hive. As a part of the whole, he becomes capable of participation in it. He shares in its victories, pleasures, and success.

    In contrast, a desert Island or a shack in the mountains is just dull.

    Hey... thats my name don't wear it out.

    Well, I would write a book so that other people can enjoy it and learn from it, thus increasing my wealth and prestige.

    I would pick more fruit than I can eat so I can trade it for a sheep, which my neighbor has been shepherding. I can't care for the sheep and grow the fruit at the same time.

    We still use violence, it's only less visible.


    By ultimate control, I mean the man who controls the production or the utilization of a resource, who uses and controls the product, protects it with violence if necessary.

    If he gives you a product, then it becomes yours. If he lends it to you, the control is ultimately his.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2005
  21. Xev Registered Senior Member

    No, creativity is what causes it to seem more plastic. More potential for you to shape.

    On the other hand, dull, uncreative people seem equally interested in making nature plastic. Arrangement, assignment, etc.

    As I prefer. Forced aesthetics are for open-air rock shows.
    Give me the simple ambience of Sibelius or the cheerfulness of Mozart any day. Even Beethovan does not force interest. He presents a work - it is up to the listener to delve into the substructure.

    In any case, this is far from the topic.


    Almost as funny as watching a man who praises social guile and claims that "there is nothing more important than personal relationships" do an about-face and claim to be against oversocialization.

    Are you self-aware? At all? Even enough to pass a Turing test?

    Or did the "social ability" schtick get old when you realized you could no longer bully geeks with it?

  22. WANDERER Banned Banned

    I see the shot, but where’s the pot?

    Emphasis, my dear Xev, on over-socialization.
    Distinction, my dear Xev, between necessity and preference.

    I don’t know…test me.

    Oh, I can still bully geeks. I just can’t make them like it.

    You’re on to me.
  23. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Ce sera, sera. I smoked it all.

    No no, no wormy-wormy.
    You've elsewhere placed a lot of emphasis on the social, on building and manipulating personal relationships. Your first line of attack is that someone might be "a nerd" not adept at the social.

    Claiming then that you do not like the over-intrusion of the social is illogical.

    It is also illogical to argue that "man is disgusting in his being a beast" and then argue that "society is wrong in it's attempt to change man into something more human"

    Needless to say, it is our rebelling against nature that breeds such scenerios as:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page