Wolf:
Niiice... you've taken my half thought out idea and put flesh on the bones. As a side thought, there is something in the way computers work that reminds us so often of the human brain... as though we've designed them using our own minds as a template without even fully knowing how our minds work.
Indeed- the brilliant mute reflecting his gods, yes?
Pretty hard trying not to fall in a slump of making programming language or computers in general too much of a pscycholgical pursuit, I feel one needs a more technical mind to avoid this.
So we're basically considering the kernel to be not only a controller, but a filtration process betwixt bios (instinct) and conscious thought?
Simpler- more like a middle-man between mind and body, psyche and limb.
But that between insinct and cognizance is more feasilble. There is definitely something like it between the two that is "kernel like"- the limbic system,that which stands between the reptilian brain and the cortex.
Reptilian- the insitinctual, 'agression survival center":
"
All social issues, good or bad, are in the end dependent upon man's reptilian brain. The so called reptilian brain is the oldest, most primative region of our gray matter. It is the aggression-survival center of our existance. The basic ruling emotions of love, hate, fear, lust, and contentment emanate from this first stage of the brain."
The outer cortical areas are the mark of the sapien and higher mammals, consciousness and thought.
It is the limbic area that stands between these two "brains", the cortical and the reptilian one. Quick defintion:
"
As animals became more complex, other structures were added (around the reptilian brain) in a shell, or "girdle". The Latin word for arc or girdle is "limbus", and this brain is called the "limbic system". We humans share this brain with older mammals like dogs, cats, and horses, and even mice (as opposed to newer mammals like chimps; we'll get to them in a moment). Their brains, and this part of our brains, are extremely similar.
Think about the difference between a mouse and a lizard, or between a cat and a snake, and you'll recognize what this mammalian brain adds to a creature's capacities. Mammals have "feelings" like ours"
What I like is the mention of it as a "shell" which is very kernel like and its function is very much like a kernel's function in a computer system.
Sweet.
People that are crimminal or overtly agressive seem to- ok, not lack you're right I will take it back, but have this monitor in between (the limbic system) turned off or damaged so that filtration goes haywire
or
the lower brain has overriden the higher parts in the cortical mantle
Or
the cortical mantle has rationalized this filtration component down to a desenstitized lump of fat, what you are calling 'dulling' to which morality means nothing. Beyond Good and Evil. This is why they (criminals) seem like animals at times, you are seeing only one brain whereas the 'normal' ones show you three. I've covered this with Lou who wondered at the criminal mind once-
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34311
However, I am by no means saying that the only way to transcend beyond good and evil is a neuropsycholigical glitch or malfunction.
I'm assuming the kernel to be there as a result of some evolutionary process, a survival mechanism for the species.
Hmm.
How about a stepping stone? No- more like a leash, I can't stand it.
What then would give rise to it's dampening or nullification? In the case of individuals, most often this would be a result of circumstance or experience - in a word, trauma. I'm willing to consider the possibility of the occasional few being born with it "missing", but as I said I don't consider this to be common even in those who break the mold of society.
No I doubt it is missing as well, I stand corrected. And I do not think it as only trauma being a culprit- I've given four possibilites. Remember Phineas Gage?
He would fall under trauma.
But someone like Gacy or Chikatiloh, Gein or Dhamer would be examples of a rationalization of that monitor or shell down to a fat lump of inert tissue, if you follow. The rationalization then could be seen as what I called 'infection' that allows this detachment they show from what people see as decadent evil.
Yes, I'm sounding anal here but its either sit and think about this in a class of programmers that do not care so long as their programs are running or share it with someone as anal to make it some kind of pretty thought or medicine.
So we have two the possibility of a few being born with a "lack", and a majority in my opinion with it having been nullified to some extent through traumatic experience, leading to serial killers and sociopaths. There is a third type I'm considering as well - those who break it down themselves. With modern access to education and "advanced" thought, there are many (particularly in the West) who embark on a kind of personal deconstruction. Those who not only know of the concept of absolute morality, but understand and believe in it's non-existance. The majority act without full consideration of their actions, their code of morality never fully explored. The "sheep", in short. Then we have some who almost reverse-engineer their own beliefs - and over time, once these beliefs or values are understood for what they are, they become of far less importance and their impact or control over actions reduced. I might be reaching here, but a comparison of The Sibling to yourself - one who reads but does not absorb, and one who does. Which is more capable of breaking the mould... with me?
No- if the 'sheeple' only acted with their lower brain we would be back in Sparta or a Hunic commune of which none of this fatted gloabalized world looks like anymore, instinct is over. Sheeple are more like watered down versions of the Sibling.
But as for those that reverse engineer as you put it- these are the Gacy's and Dahmers and to some extent the Leopold and Loebs, that have almost immunized themselves (perhaps not Dahmer, still not sure) to their actions and any moral imperatives involved.
One cannot have an obsessive nature- those that
do fail in the process as Raskolnikov did for he obsessed over the implications and details.
For the hypersensitve, nuance beomces quagmire- this is why he failed despite his endeavor. On these kind it is too philosophical.
The Abbe Maudit says:
"The result was that I remained morose and
self-centered, inhibited and friendless. The process of increasing mental strain went on subconsciously but surely.........in a flash I began to understand myself. I realized why little everyday troubles assume catastrophic proportions in my eyes; I saw that I was so constituted that I felt everything overkeenly and was hyper-susceptible which was intesified by my abnormal sensitiveness....Happy indeed are those to whom nature has given a thick skin and the ardour of stoicism!"- Maupassant
Raskolnikov was too self centered- this is why he failed and why we are both full of shit if we think ourselves capable.
In groups, it is probably different. Your use of the word "barbarians" above got me thinking about the the tribes of old and modern day barbarians - the mongols and the Khmer Rouge, as examples. circumstance, again. In the case of the mongols, children would be innured to violence by dint of it being a part of life from a very early age. Thus, they form as a society with it being of less importance. A bare-bones or different kernel to that we might possess.
Exactly.
What is Faust to one who is already like Faust? What is savagery to the savage? The Muslim grows up in a mileu of passion and angst in his faith while the Christian lives the life of complacency in a Sunday school-
this is why the Chritian responds to the brutallity of a Gibson film, he lacks it in his own life and it agitates an animal sleeping inside.
"The Passion of Muhammad" would have little impact if nothing else on a Muslim since his faith is more beastly.
The modern day example is a bit more difficult - this being an example of a kernel already being in place and then removed later. Indoctrination and education of sorts, forming a ... password? allowing it to be bypassed to a large extent
No no no- if we are going to speak of "passwords" then fine, metaphorically speaking I feel only the ostracized capable of any passoword. By and large only a small few.
Bundy is a wonderful example.
