Canis lupus hominis

Posted in deep thought | Tagged Enlgihtenment, Matthew Taylor | 10 Comments

10 Responses

1. on December 18, 2012 at 8:01 am chervilmeadow

   It could all have been expressed more economically and therefore achieve better absorbtion. Did anyone else reading this almost lose the will to live?

   
   
2. on December 18, 2012 at 10:53 am massugu

   Whew! A whole lot of key ideas presented in a very short timeframe.

   My biggest problem with it is that in my slow, methodical, critical-thinking mode (as opposed to my intuitive mode), its cognitive overload. However, a presentation in this format is an essential first step in that it serves as an archive to which one can refer, pulling out each distinct concept, exploring and developing it fully, and then returning for the next concept. All this with the intent of eventually linking all the concepts together within an individual’s mind as well as within the group and societal gestalts.

   My assessment? Its a phenomenal piece of cross-disciplinary work. I intend to repost it on my Facebook page.

   
   
3. on December 18, 2012 at 11:40 am Peggy Richter

   A lot of sound signifying not much. The thinking of the modern age will be different from that of the past. The views of those in the 18th – many folk thought man shouldn’t fly, that going faster than sound would kill you, even objecting to the automobile. On the other hand, caring for a baby probably would be pretty much the same for mothers of 2,000 bc as for those of 2,012 CE. The argument regarding “genetic hardwiring”– The issue of free will is actually fairly new. For a long time it was felt that everything was “pre ordained”. The view that we are largely driven by our genes and environment is no big leap and has been “in play” for some time.

   Inequality of the rich has increased? I think our modern era compares pretty favorably with say, that of the late Roman Republic one in how the rich lived and the poor. Or how the privileged lived in Norman times and the poor. The fact is that in most places (including UK and USA), the poorest of the poor have a better safety net than they did in the past. That there is a big gap, yes. And there was probably a bigger one between Crassus and a galley slave of 60 BC.

   The argument about “increasing empathic capacity” ignores the very biological hardwired behavior that makes human tribe1 fight with human tribe 2 – just as lion prides, wolf packs and other animals do (just with different techniques and weapons) and the tendency of whoever is “in charge” to domineer is likely genetically derived from the common ancestor we have with chimps. Dictators of today are pretty much the same as Dictators of 1,000 BC just with different technology. Reality is that the human, as a natural animal is just that – an animal with all the drives to domineer the weak, destroy competitors and control resources for oneself and one’s most closely related genetic cohorts.

   ARE we happier than the low tech Cro Magnon? The pattern of education- work/caring – old age is pretty much the same as for any mammal. It’s as much biological as cultural, but the culture of how we treat the old differs from say, that of the Confucius era Chinese culture, which was lower tech—and which, incidentally, discarded some scientific discoveries as of no real value, rather than emulating our own of “if we discover it, we should develop it”. Who we are, what we need to be and what we might aspire to be are the same exact questions of the 1770s, so it’s hardly new. Margaret Mead died in 1978 and her major works were in the 60s. Hardly leading edge.
   The idea that somehow we will magically find a “philosophy” (which is what an approach to life, education and others is) that will result in better happiness, empathy, etc, is something one can find in Zoroastrian, Buddist, Confucian, and yep, even Christian concepts. It’s not new and the success rate isn’t impressive. The Code of Hammurabi and it’s decendants have probably done just as much to engender peace, tranquility and at least the pursuit of happiness than the philosophies.

   
   
   • on December 18, 2012 at 3:56 pm Dave

     Someone needs to listen to “The Empathic Civilization”:

     
     
     • on December 18, 2012 at 4:52 pm massugu

       Thanks Dave, this is something that I already understood on an intuitive level. Its nice to see it laid out in a logical manner. Our sense of empathy is actually evolving!

       
       
   • on December 18, 2012 at 8:32 pm megrim43

     A real Enlightenment requires a consensus of gifted and influential thinkers, pursuing the same goals and possibly effecting a paradigm shift.

     Where are they?

     Elizabeth

     
     
     • on December 18, 2012 at 10:23 pm massugu

       My thoughts? I believe they’re coming along–slowly but surely. We’re in the midst of a major paradigm shift–the old one was fine for the 20th Century but has been found wanting in the 21st. Reactionaries will try to hold it back–2 steps forward/1 step back–but the change is inevitable. The advent of the Global Village; new data that overturns old premises; and the growth of Secular Humanism are all conspiring to lead us kicking and screaming into a new global perception of reality.

       (‘Course, we have to survive what we’ve managed to do to the ecosphere and ourselves to see it all come to fruition.)

       
       
       • on December 18, 2012 at 10:26 pm massugu

         In retrospect, …early stages of a major paradigm shift… is more accurate than “…midst of a major paradigm shift….”.

         
         
         • on December 19, 2012 at 3:58 am retrieverman

           “Perhaps a better world is drawing near
           And just as easily it could all disappear.”

           –Jackson Browne “For A Dancer”

           
           
4. on December 20, 2012 at 11:04 am Peggy Richter

   I think the “global village” is more hype than reality. Yes, we “feel” for the starving in Bangladesh — but primarily because we are informed about them and are presented with images on TV that are intended to trigger such responses. The sympathy factor for say, underprivileged in Applalachia who are not regularly on TV, not so much. There’s no evidence of a reduction in bullying, nor for one group trying to force another to comply with its wishes – is the threat of Syrian leaders to use Sarin gas (and apparently US troup exposure to it during the Gulf War) indicative of a “greater empathy”? The form and nature of the dominance may change with the technology, but I really don’t see that we are somehow more empathetic towards the stranger than we were back in the Roman era, On the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence regarding hard wiring of humans to be territorial, to have a dominance hierarchy and for those in power/authority to tend to use it at the detriment of the weaker members of the community and those outside it. Note the BBC article indicating the structure of our hands was at least partially shaped to be a better fighting tool: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20790294
   I sometimes think the effort to impose “niceness” on individuals and political units is rather like the Siegfried and Roy “pet tiger’ syndrome. It works well — until an individual shows that it’s pretty much an illusion. Presuming lions are the same as pet cats is a recipe for disaster. Presuming that humans aren’t inherently violent, domineering and aggressive and that one only need “educate” them to be different is equally slated for failure.

   
   

Comments are closed.