why is humanity so unkind to one another [Archive]

pocebokli

Jun12-04, 01:52 PM

because we CAN be unkind. We can CHOOSE, get it? why have the instinct of aggression if it has no apparent or inapparent use?

your president is proving that right now, by trying to establish a "free" society in Iraq, through the help of *force*.

so you see, when we fight we don't just fight to obtain resources, but to bring (through the means of war, but also through the means of *culture* (hollywood)) other nations and cultures closer to our way of thinking and doing things our way, thus lessening or eliminating the threat of them doing the same to us.

If one culture (I.E. muslim) is forced or led to embrace another culture, another ways of life (Ie christian), it is far less a threat to the latter culture. The differences become extremely small until it decreses just to individual differences within the greater culture and society. (for example: differences between nations in european union are present and pretty obvious, but we are all connected with a greater, christian, western, principles, thus cooperation is possible).

or; if iraq was christianized and democratisized a 100 years ago, they would have no objections to trade and be kind to the western world, and your president could obtain what he wants through simple trade, plus there would be no need to try and strenghten it's cultural and military influence in the arabian peninsula.

but this is just one case to think about.

the dynamics and laws of human relationships are much more complex than any intel chip or something like that, and if one would want to think about "why are we aggressive" or similar things about human relationships, one must have a continuously open mind, being able to see the patterns and laws that apply to our behaviour. actually much like mathemathics.

the anwsers to such questions are elusive and not easily determined, much like the weather.

force5

Jun12-04, 05:05 PM

I think the key is directly related to self preservation. This fundamental trait of biological things pit one against the other. It seems to surface in the form of greed, although this greed can be well disguised and presented in some unexpected ways.

Nicomachus

Jun12-04, 06:22 PM

Could it be that all the higher order functions of humans we like to point to as the result of primitive and primal necessities are actually higher order functions? It just seems so cliche to say every action we do is the result of wanting food or the result of genetic evolution.
*Nico

force5

Jun12-04, 09:33 PM

The higher order functions are such, because they stand on the shoulders of our more basic instincts. I believe our basic instincts are a little broader in scope than simply wanting food.

Nicomachus

Jun12-04, 10:36 PM

Well granted, I am not providing a rigorous argument against or analysis of your position but from a cursory inspection all this sort of rhetoric seems a bit cliche. To somewhat paraphrase the utilitarian Mill, obviously we share the desires of primitive animals such as, of course, the pig, but our functions and desires are also much more expansive and our endeavors are much more of a, pardon the expression, higher order. I do tend to doubt that all of our endeavors can be reduced to such primitive motivations and propensities. Many who subscribe to this sort of idea even go to such an extreme as to dream things like "evolutionary morals" and other such concepts. I think it is more of the act of taking a valid scientific idea and attempting to apply it everywhere for the sake of simplicity. But maybe not. Though, it does seem to be a bit too cliche.
*Nico

loseyourname

Jun12-04, 11:19 PM

1+1=2 is pretty cliche, but it's still right.

That isn't to say the position you are arguing against has been proven correct, but skepticism alone does not disprove it. Don't forget that Mill had absolutely no knowledge of modern evolutionary principles and genetics.

force5

Jun12-04, 11:43 PM

Hi Nico,

Although i'm convinced our basic biological needs play a major roll in human behavior, it in no way justifies the extent some people will go to, in order to carry out their personal agenda. Obviously, people receive satisfaction in many different ways, and many will sacrafice the rights of others in order to fulfill those needs.

Many years ago, I was having a simular discusion with a friend. I recall telling him that I believed all conflict was a direct result of ignorance and/or greed. Today, this is still the position I would take.

Good discussion, thanks.

Nicomachus

Jun12-04, 11:48 PM

Well 1+1=2 is axiomatic it is not cliche. You're just making a strawman of my informal criticism. As far as Mill is concerned, it was an obvious allusion, I must assume you are familiar with it because you are criticizing him; you seem to suggest that a pig and a human have an equal capacity for fulfillment, is this so? In simpler terms, and in the rhetoric of Mill, is it incorrect to say based on modern evolutationary princples that "it is better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied?" I had not known that the modern theory of evolution had proven that pigs and humans have equal propensities for satisfaction. I think the position that all of our actions are simply reduced to primitive functions is more a way to find an easy and somewhat intuitive solution without actually giving the problem a rigorous examination.
*Nico

loseyourname

Jun13-04, 12:04 AM

I don't recall saying men's urges are the same as those of a pig. You seem to be arguing with someone else, perhaps the aforementioned strawman. What I meant to point out was that Mill did not have the understanding of biology necessary to dismiss or accept a biological account of the urges and satisfactions of a man. I'm not reducing anything to primitive functions here. Many biological functions are far from primitive, not to mention far from completely understood.

By the way, 1+1=2 is both cliche and axiomatic, which was exactly my point.

from www.dictionary.com

cliche

n : a trite or obvious remark.

Nicomachus

Jun13-04, 12:12 AM

Well respect to the axiom, touche! As far as Mill, well you specifically disagreed with my remark so I assumed you knew what I was referring to. Mill simply said that the humans clearly had more expansive propensity for satisfaction than lower animals, but I digress. I must reiterate that I am not proposing a rigorous attack on the position in question I simply have my reservations about it and I have seen no real prove other than some, what I consider to be, weak inferences.
*Nico

olde drunk

Jun13-04, 09:00 AM

from what i have seen, irrational aggression and violence is the result of fear. once man realizes that it is not weak to be kind we will commence our next phase of evolution.

understanding the nature of our fears will eliminate wars, racial bias and religious intolerance.

love&peace,
olde drunk

Moonrat

Jun14-04, 11:45 AM

understanding the nature of our fears will eliminate wars, racial bias and religious intolerance.

olde drunk

I suggest that it is the conflict of idea, both inside of both human nature and all of nature that is the source of conflict.

Animals are their ideas, and in nature we often see the males fighting each other to deliver to the female the best *genetic* idea for the continuation of the species. We even see this in the moment of conception and the dance between the millions of sperm and the one single egg.

Conflict performs a function in nature. In Humanity, as we climb out of our lower animal natures, what can save us in this process is that we humans are NOT our ideas. Once an individual can see this, they can then embrace the natural conflict of idea and have it serve all of humanity instead of cause misery and suffering such is what we are witnessing in world events.

When human beings confuse themselves as the ideas being discussed, we find them hurting, maiming, or killing those who voice the opposing idea in defence.

The conflict of idea will always remain. It is probable that the conflict of idea will also serve the higher functions of humanity once it is properly understood.

olde drunk

Jun14-04, 01:24 PM

i have no difficulty accepting aggressive competition in nature or in sports among humans. it is the emotional need to harm - injure another that has fear as the most probable root. when an athlete goes beyond the rules of the game, invariably his fear of embarassment, failure, etc is the force behind the improper act(s).

if we could only understand that embarassement comes from an egotistical weakness and that losing is a part of the game; we can interact (play the game) more freely with more joy. professional players have another concern, loss of income. the US will not have it's best possible baskeball team because they fear for their safety.

why are so many decisions made out of fear???? no wonder we have a world full of unrest. everyone is affraid that they will lose what little they have to a lesser country - religion - race. all this anxiety has a global impact on many levels.

the irony is - none of us will leave this world with more than what we came in with. so, what's the big deal with sharing???

all the wise men since forever have said 'love your neighbor as yourself'. how can we fight over which wise man siad it best??? the only understanding we can garner from harmful violence is that it is fruitless. it never solves the real problem. in fact, it may complicate an otherwise simple problem.

maybe we are here to learn that hurting each other has no merit???

love&peace,
olde drunk

confutatis

Jun14-04, 01:32 PM

Much is discussed about this subject, but I seldom see anyone explain why it is necessary, possible, or even desirable to put an end to violence. Does anybody really believe a world filled with angel-like people, completely incapable of doing anything unpleasant to each other?

This is a world of suffering, and suffering comes in many forms. If it's not by violence, it will be by disease, strife, hunger, boredom, loneliness, despair, mass destruction, misfortune...

We are born to suffer, and suffer we must. There is no way out of it other than death. If there is another life waiting for us beyond the grave, then we can dream of a perfect society completely free of evil. In the meantime, the best we can do is gather strength to endure our ordeal.

loseyourname

Jun14-04, 01:32 PM

Let us not forget the importance of anger. I don't think fear is the only factor playing into this. Also, some people are just plain sick. I used to read a great deal about serial killers when I was a kid, and for the most part, they are neither fearful or angry. They're motivated by the acquiring of pleasure just like the rest of us; it just so happens that they derive pleasure from slicing up other human beings.

Moonrat

Jun14-04, 02:01 PM

i have no difficulty accepting aggressive competition in nature or in sports among humans. it is the emotional need to harm - injure another that has fear as the most probable root.

Agreed, Olde drunk. It is an emotional need to harm that stems from the desire to solve a problem that an individual has, somewhere in there is a conflict of idea about self, or even how to solve the problem.Irrational. Thinking with the feelings.

fear is not a feeling but an idea about what we are feeling or experianceing. It is a 'knee jerk' reaction in a time of percieved threat to status, order, or survival. It is identifying with the 'idea', we kill or harm to protect the idea too, which of course is just simply irrational. Like animals.

Much is discussed about this subject, but I seldom see anyone explain why it is necessary, possible, or even desirable to put an end to violence. Does anybody really believe a world filled with angel-like people, completely incapable of doing anything unpleasant to each other?

Well, it is all about where you place the conflict and the violence. If conflict is a neccesary strategem of nature, which it seems both you and I agree on this matter, we human beings in the 21 century, as intelligent as we are, can use this natural function to enhance us instead of eventually destroy all of us.

The main goal all of us share is we all want to 'win' on some level, or desire such a goal that if it is achieved we can call it winning. Winning then too is a function or strategem inside of nature, I suggest.

So it is more about the basic biological need to 'win' that pushes us to it, making others 'lose' as the only way to accomplish those goals of winning.

What I suggest is entirely possible for us as a species in this moment in history is we can create, through our advanced technologies, win'win systems of administration that embarces everyones need to 'win', without creating loss...

I can relate to the 'hopelessness' of the poster who began this thread. I suggest, if what one is searching for is 'hope' coupled with some 'certainty', to pick up the works of Buckminster Fuller, whose solutions of 'success for all without disadvantaging any' to gain more insight in this aspect of problem solving in the novel 21 century.

There are many who suggest, and I agree with them, that we are closer to world peace than you think!

Moonrat

confutatis

Jun14-04, 03:56 PM

If conflict is a neccesary strategem of nature, which it seems both you and I agree on this matter

But I don't agree with that. Nature could just as well be such that, when tired of living, the lamb would lie down with the lion, be eaten for breakfast the next morning, and feel the luckier for it. From a scientific perspective, it makes sense that a creature would avoid death until reproduction age, but it makes no sense at all that the creature should not welcome death after that, so as to save resources for the next generation.

we human beings in the 21 century, as intelligent as we are, can use this natural function to enhance us instead of eventually destroy all of us.

I can assure you that, in terms of achieving peace, human beings in the 21st century have nothing that their ancestors in the 1st century didn't have. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now. At least our ancestors fought for the basic necessities of life, whereas we fight for the right to buy cheap gas for our luxury SUVs.

So it is more about the basic biological need to 'win' that pushes us to it, making others 'lose' as the only way to accomplish those goals of winning.

And that explains why a man would fly a jet airliner into a crowded building, killing himself and a few thousand others... where is the winner in that scenario?

What I suggest is entirely possible for us as a species in this moment in history is we can create, through our advanced technologies, win'win systems of administration that embarces everyones need to 'win', without creating loss.

Why do you believe in technology, when the single most important use of it is to develop arms? The wars of the 20th century were the deadliest in human history; thanks to technology we've had death and destruction on a scale unknown to mankind.

There are many who suggest, and I agree with them, that we are closer to world peace than you think!

I feel bad pointing to the fact that the past is the most reliable source of information about the future, and that the past tells us that our future will bring more wars, some of them quite violent. I feel bad because, personally, I don't feel the need to entertain dreams about this world; I know it's nature and I'm not sad about it. I used to be sad, but nowadays I understand why suffering exists, why it is important to our lives, and why we must accept our fate rather than try and change it.

I do realize that understanding those things takes a lifetime.

Nicomachus

Jun14-04, 04:01 PM

This is a world of suffering, and suffering comes in many forms. If it's not by violence, it will be by disease, strife, hunger, boredom, loneliness, despair, mass destruction, misfortune...

We are born to suffer, and suffer we must. There is no way out of it other than death. If there is another life waiting for us beyond the grave, then we can dream of a perfect society completely free of evil. In the meantime, the best we can do is gather strength to endure our ordeal.

"A man is born, he suffers, and he dies." =)

*Nico

---

From a scientific perspective, it makes sense that a creature would avoid death until reproduction age, but it makes no sense at all that the creature should not welcome death after that, so as to save resources for the next generation.

Why does it not make sense that a "creature" would not welcome death after reproduction? What premises does that follow from? On the whole I can understand your position but I think much of this is derived from a very limited perspective that nature should follow, what are considered to be, "scientific princples" which are gained from nothing more than weak inferences of ought.

Moonrat

Jun15-04, 12:44 AM

But I don't agree with that. Nature could just as well be such that, when tired of living, the lamb would lie down with the lion, be eaten for breakfast the next morning, and feel the luckier for it. .

i think you are confusing perhaps fear of death with conflict? Animals surrender when they die, often they will run away and even die alone. they seem, in many occasions, to be wired how to respond to death.

Yet regardless of how it may be percieved by the lamb, she does not lie down, she runs away. the slowest moving lamb is the one that gets caught, keeping the faster ones fit and on their toes. natural selection again. Survival of the fastest. The best ones live and pass on the most effective genes that are slowly refined throughout generations.

Conflict, and games of conflict, perform over arching functions in the over habitat, insuring the most effective genes will always win and remain dominant.

On your previous post you mentioned something about suffering/violence and such to be endemnic, forgive me if i mistook your point.

From a scientific perspective, it makes sense that a creature would avoid death until reproduction age, but it makes no sense at all that the creature should not welcome death after that, so as to save resources for the next generation.

how is that a scientific perspective when we have never observed such an occurance of aging salmon throwing themselves gleefully into the bear's mouth? or have I misunderstood you here...

I can assure you that, in terms of achieving peace, human beings in the 21st century have nothing that their ancestors in the 1st century didn't have.

surely you have heard of that damn internet?

It didn't happen then and it won't happen now.

Perhaps Nico can reveal how that statement is, what do you call it Nico, a vacuous truth? hehe...

I am just curious how it not happening in 1 AD = It wont happen now or in the future. Rocket travel did not happen then either, nor cloning. Hey, guess what? In 2015, there is said to be a cure for cancer, or, anyone with cancer will not suffer and die. How about that? That also did not occur in the 1 century, nor in the 20th.

It will happen because it is the only way to avoid total extinction and self -annilhilation. It never could have happenend until now, it was virtually impossible, but also because the world was not even connected nor aware of all it's neighbors to even imagine such a thing.

I dont mean to sound sarcastic, really, I dont, but how much thinking have you really put into the matter, or was that just an immediate expression of your over all outlook. (i.e opinion)

At least our ancestors fought for the basic necessities of life, whereas we fight for the right to buy cheap gas for our luxury SUVs.

Well, they must be the asses who got us into this mess in the first place;-)

And that explains why a man would fly a jet airliner into a crowded building, killing himself and a few thousand others... where is the winner in that scenario?

there is no winner in that scenario objectivly, they are irrational and cannot percieve objective reality, but subjectivly, in the mind of the political fanatical Muslims, flying suicide airplanes into trade centers is how they can rid the Mid East of American Presence and return the Lands to Islamic Rule (i.e their version of 'winning')

mo' later, I gots a phone call...

Deeviant

Jun15-04, 01:21 AM

"How can you expect kindness and decency on a planet of sleeping people?"
Gurdgieff

I think I'm going to spend some time learning about Gurdieff, as the answer to this question couldn't have been put into more elegant terms.

Most people spend their lives sleeping, doomed to never awaken to see reality of reality, caught in a cycle of horrible nightmares laced with sweet dreams. The only progress we have is when someone wakes up.

Moonrat

Jun15-04, 02:19 AM

Why do you believe in technology, when the single most important use of it is to develop arms? The wars of the 20th century were the deadliest in human history; thanks to technology we've had death and destruction on a scale unknown to mankind.

.

this is true and I do not deny it. It sucks when politicians get to control technology and how it is used. Most scientists do not dream up death rays and the like, it is the neccesity of them that is encouraged by human politics, not human science, design, or technology.

And no matter how bad things appear, there is more pleasure and oppurtunity now for humanity than ever in the past, or, i.e things are getting better in spite of all the madness politicians cause.

I feel bad pointing to the fact that the past is the most reliable source of information about the future, and that the past tells us that our future will bring more wars, some of them quite violent.

the past does not tell us about the future, the past tells us about the past. and conflict has been apart of our history, and has even shaped our history.

Let me ask you a question, and this is only for pondering, ok?

do you think that maybe there is a design or goal/function of the human species? I mean, there either is or is not, right? chance or design/goal?

If nature does have a 'goal' for life, then life in space is either that goal or is apart of that goal, because now mankind is a permenant post terrestrial species, with the advent of the international space station.

Now the above is just a proposition, but if the above proposition has merit, then what would that make WW1 and WW2 but the background enviroment which led to the technology that would launch us into space?

I use this as an example to suggest again the nature of conflict inside of life that nature uses to keep us moving forward...forward toward what i do not know, but space must be a part of it because that is what is in front of us.

I feel bad because, personally, I don't feel the need to entertain dreams about this world; I know it's nature and I'm not sad about it. I used to be sad, but nowadays I understand why suffering exists, why it is important to our lives, and why we must accept our fate rather than try and change it.I do realize that understanding those things takes a lifetime

I am sorry you feel bad and not sad, bad or sad is not joy, hope, inspiration, and a bummer fer sure....

well, that is just it, it is nature. we are nature too, right? intelligence increases in the species through the conflict of idea. Humanity right now has the potential to harness the conflict at it's root, idea, and use that 'nature' to insure success. Accepting misery and suffering is resignation, not a path of spiritual nobility. When Buddha was around, or the Gurus in India, surrounded by so much suffering, one had to accept that, there were no toher answers other than 'all life is sorrow'. In the 21 century, we have the know how to produce billionaire wealth for every single global citizen. we have the resources. the problem is distribution of those resources and the ideologies that control them. Never before was there this possiblity...( for foot notes in the above idea, please consult Buckminster Fuller's 'Critical Path')

Moorat

confutatis

Jun15-04, 09:06 AM

Most scientists do not dream up death rays and the like, it is the neccesity of them that is encouraged by human politics, not human science, design, or technology.

Trust me, without the work of brilliant scientists there would be no weapons of any kind. The team that built the first A-bomb had Nobel laureates amongst them. I'm sure people like Richard Feynman believed they were using science for a greater good when they built a device capable of killing 100,000 people and wiping an entire city out of the map, but the link between scientists and generals, between science and death, is there for anyone to see.

And no matter how bad things appear, there is more pleasure and oppurtunity now for humanity than ever in the past, or, i.e things are getting better in spite of all the madness politicians cause.

I'm not sure things are getting better. It's easy to claim that from the comfort and safety of the American way of life, or from the quarter of the world who calls itself "modern" and "developed". But I wonder where the pleasures and opportunities are for the masses that live in poverty throughout Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, India, China, most of Asia.

do you think that maybe there is a design or goal/function of the human species? I mean, there either is or is not, right? chance or design/goal?

I do not believe in chance. I believe everything happens for a purpose, and we as human beings have a vague notion of what that purpose is.

If nature does have a 'goal' for life, then life in space is either that goal or is apart of that goal, because now mankind is a permenant post terrestrial species, with the advent of the international space station.

I fail to see the relevance of those adventures in space, but I'll accept your proposition.

Now the above is just a proposition, but if the above proposition has merit, then what would that make WW1 and WW2 but the background enviroment which led to the technology that would launch us into space?

I believe suffering has a purpose, but I believe that purpose is much more personal than building rocketships. I believe we must suffer so that we learn the true nature of our relationship with the cosmos. I know quite a lot about suffering and about learning, out of personal experience. I know very little about space exploration and its importance to mankind's spiritual evolution.

I use this as an example to suggest again the nature of conflict inside of life that nature uses to keep us moving forward...forward toward what i do not know, but space must be a part of it because that is what is in front of us.

The things that are in front of us are often the hardest to see. You may think the moon and the stars are important; I think learning to love your neighbour as you love yourself is far more so.

I am sorry you feel bad and not sad, bad or sad is not joy, hope, inspiration, and a bummer fer sure....

Do not be sorry. I am far more optimistic than you can possibly imagine. You have faith in humanity, but I have faith in God. It's hard to think of anything that gives more joy, hope, inspiration, than unquestioning faith in the power that created the Universe.

Accepting misery and suffering is resignation, not a path of spiritual nobility.

Jesus Christ died on a cross. He accepted misery and suffering, he resigned to it and put everything in the hands of God. For a Christian, nothing is more spiritually noble than resignation - it means you trust God so much, you realize you don't have to worry about your fate, even if you don't understand it.

When it comes to spirituality, what you believe determines what is noble. An Indian guru thinks of love as unnecessary attachment to an illusion; a Western Christian thinks of love as the essence of the universe. Both are noble in their own ways. Above all, spirituality is about understanding paradoxes. That is why it can't be explained.

olde drunk

Jun15-04, 09:36 AM

i disagree that being resigned to a fate is desorable or noble. somehow, when i read these words i hear - feel surrender. i do not believe that our mission was to surrender.

rather, i prefer to view each situation, problem, or threat as a challenge to our creative abilities. to consider and accept dying after reproduction denies the value of our other creative processes. procreation is only one of our talents.

the more people that understand that a peaceful world is a desired reality the more it becomes possible. to me, it would not be boring. look at all the resources we could funnel into new areas of exploration. not the least of which money, put to use to feed, clothe and shelter the needy of the world.

just imagine the new ideas that would flow if we fully educated the world population. i hate statistics, but do we educate half the population??? sigh.

love&peace,
olde drunk

confutatis

Jun15-04, 11:07 AM

Moonrat

Jun15-04, 12:42 PM

Trust me, without the work of brilliant scientists there would be no weapons of any kind. The team that built the first A-bomb had Nobel laureates amongst them. I'm sure people like Richard Feynman believed they were using science for a greater good when they built a device capable of killing 100,000 people and wiping an entire city out of the map, but the link between scientists and generals, between science and death, is there for anyone to see.

.

you are forgetting to put the politician into the equation. Or, better yet, to use another model, lower circuit intelligence using butterfly technology for monkey territorial spats.
I'm not sure things are getting better. It's easy to claim that from the comfort and safety of the American way of life, or from the quarter of the world who calls itself "modern" and "developed". But I wonder where the pleasures and opportunities are for the masses that live in poverty throughout Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, India, China, most of Asia.

starvation and poverty did not just appear when 1/4 of the world started living better. It is old, and slowly we HAVE developed a increasing improvement and enviroment for humanity. I mean, even in Africa, look how much help she gets in terms of medicine that NEVER would have happened before?

BUT! we are not there yet, this is for certain. But it is my goal that we do get there and I get to see it in my lifetime..

I do not believe in chance. I believe everything happens for a purpose, and we as human beings have a vague notion of what that purpose is.

we are beginning to find that 'purpose', I prefer to use the word 'design' since purpose suggests more of a free will kind of thing and design denotes more a true will of a species..

I believe suffering has a purpose, but I believe that purpose is much more personal than building rocketships. I believe we must suffer so that we learn the true nature of our relationship with the cosmos. I know quite a lot about suffering and about learning, out of personal experience. I know very little about space exploration and its importance to mankind's spiritual evolution.

If humanity has a cosmic relationship, then us moving into space is highly relevant to see that, and yes we did suffer to get there, but that is because we got their unconsciously, i.e we did not know that by developing a rocket to blow someone up we developed a technology that is part of our future design.....

I dont think we are designed to suffer, I think we are designed to end suffering..

The things that are in front of us are often the hardest to see. You may think the moon and the stars are important; I think learning to love your neighbour as you love yourself is far more so.

I dont think they are in competition, I think they are both necesary to achieve each other..

Do not be sorry. I am far more optimistic than you can possibly imagine. You have faith in humanity, but I have faith in God. It's hard to think of anything that gives more joy, hope, inspiration, than unquestioning faith in the power that created the Universe.

well, it may give you comfortable feeling, but it will not deliever you certainty about a higher intelligence in universe, and understanding humanity's design will.

Certainty is a much more reliable and i nspirational bedfellow than faith..

Jesus Christ died on a cross. He accepted misery and suffering, he resigned to it and put everything in the hands of God.

Well, you accepted my proposition, and I will accept yours.

But if he accepted suffering, why does his chief formula of 'do unto others' reign as his major gift to humanity? Why did he cure the sick, or raise the dead even?

Now humanity can perform more miracles than Christ did......we shall not surrender to misery and niether did Jesus

For a Christian, nothing is more spiritually noble than resignation - it means you trust God so much, you realize you don't have to worry about your fate, even if you don't understand it.

I think we are (or hope) we are defining resignation differently. Resignation means 'giving up hope or possibility' I prefer to use the word 'surrender' or accept that which we cannot change, but change the things we can (an old cliche that works)

When it comes to spirituality, what you believe determines what is noble. An Indian guru thinks of love as unnecessary attachment to an illusion; a Western Christian thinks of love as the essence of the universe. Both are noble in their own ways. Above all, spirituality is about understanding paradoxes. That is why it can't be explained

paradox can be understood outside of spirituality, but one does need a powerful inner experiance to understand such.

however , paradox is not irrational, just two opposites in conjunction and union with each other that twist and turn, erasing and creating each other...

Have hope in humanity, Jesus did too!

Moonrat

Moonrat

Jun15-04, 01:17 PM

"A man is born, he suffers, and he dies." =)

*Nico
.

I wonder what kind of man would smile at such a proposition.....a little too revealing.....

olde drunk

Jun15-04, 02:39 PM

olde drunk,
Your motives are noble. If every single person alive shared your ideals, we would be in heaven. But if just one person takes advantage of everyone else's goodwill, then how are we to enforce our ideals without compromising them?

In essence, that's the dilemma facing mankind: we must be good, but we can't be good to people who are not good.
ah, there's the rub. what fun is there in taking advantage of anyone, someone who gives up whatever you want, willingly. as a philosophy, i suspect that if i am robbed, the robber needed the goods more than i wanted them. or, i over-valued them and had to learn to live without them. in either case, i give them up willingly.

we have become so enmeshed with our toys that we don't want to share. this is bad parenting (lol)! this includes money and power. driving a brand new top of the line, SUV does not mean you are better or happier than the next guy. it only serves your ego.

yes, i would miss my computer, tv, car etc if they were taken away. BUT, they are not important in the grand scheme of things. i would rather walk than have gas for my car at the expense of one life. etc, etc.. Back in the 40's we all took mass transit (lol) buses. More significantly, do you want to send your son or daughter to war so that you can continue to enjoy your toys????

i am not noble, i have 'been there and done' that on too many issues. i would like to see more people realize that the 'american dream' of 2 homes, 2 cars, 2kids, etc etc. is hollow. it has no substance or sustenance. it is the fear of losing these conveniences that allows us to accept the military - industrial - political complex authorizing war. sadly, the ones that go are the lower classes, led by the noble elite that believe the propaganda about our dream.

i can only ask that we all embrace peace and look for alternate solutions to problems. IMHO, pacifist is not a four letter word!

it is the intellectual community that needs to address these issues. Big biz and big brother have too much invested in the current way of life.

love&peace,
olde drunk

confutatis

Jun15-04, 03:16 PM

If humanity has a cosmic relationship, then us moving into space is highly relevant to see that

i would like to see more people realize that the 'american dream' of 2 homes, 2 cars, 2kids, etc etc. is hollow. it has no substance or sustenance.

Well, it's not everyday that you see two people, who apparenty share the same spiritual values, offer two radically different perspectives on teh same issue. One believes that 60 million dead in two world wars might have been a just price to pay for the development of spacecraft; the other believes owning a car is hollow and has no substance.

Let us celebrate the paradoxes of spirituality!

olde drunk

Jun15-04, 08:02 PM

touche'!

lol!

love&peace,
olde drunk

Moonrat

Jun15-04, 08:20 PM

Well, it's not everyday that you see two people, who apparenty share the same spiritual values, offer two radically different perspectives on teh same issue. One believes that 60 million dead in two world wars might have been a just price to pay for the development of spacecraft; the other believes owning a car is hollow and has no substance.

Let us celebrate the paradoxes of spirituality!

lol, but I dont believe that 60 million people justifies spaceflight, rather showing another perspective of humanity pushing forward even when we have no idea what it is we are doing....

just like right now, we are creating the very enviroment we need to achieve world peace, completly under the radar.....

Nicomachus

Jun15-04, 09:03 PM

Moonrat

Jun16-04, 01:14 AM

Yes, it is absurd isn't it?
*Nico

dont worry, Nico, one day, perhaps after you properly understand OS 012 or an idea that is like OS 012, you will not find paradoxes so alarming. You will find them inspiring to your mind. You will make for better dinner company, and well your posts, geez, they will even become interesting, funny, and insightful!

Until that day comes, well, we are all looking out for you!
:wink:

Your friend,

Bubblefish

merak

Jun17-04, 09:26 AM

its simple remove the gene that causes "greed"

BoulderHead

Jun17-04, 10:31 AM

Merak,
What happens to anger if the greed-gene is eliminated?

Rader

Jun17-04, 11:17 AM

its simple remove the gene that causes "greed"

Nope not a solution, just need a one charity gene more to keep things in balance, going in the right direction :wink: .

selfAdjoint

Jun17-04, 11:46 AM

What we need is a gene or meme or something to make us see the stranger as one of us, rather than as a thing to be feared and killed.

Moonrat

Jun17-04, 11:56 AM

What we need is a gene or meme or something to make us see the stranger as one of us, rather than as a thing to be feared and killed.

hey man, that 'meme' is OS 012, (and any meme that is like OS 012)
and the enviroment for such a thing is the internet..I mean, on the internet, we can discuss with fanaticial Muslims and war mongers, and they cant hurt us..we are naturally protected. The internet creates the safe place for the historical dialectic to quicken at a rapid pace without harm to those the voice the 'dangerous' ideas of world peace...

Hehe, we all know Nico would love to pummel me if our discussion was face to face....

I suggest this is only a natural process and nothing more. It is possible to create an enviroment for discussion with axiom and proposition where all sides can win in any discussion....

"All sides win" is the next step in human administration. All sides win distribution and all sides win foriegn policy is much easier to implement in the 21 century than the war on terrorism..

"all sides win" is a meme that is spreading.....it is the only rational goal that delievers certainty for conflict resolution..

Nicomachus

Jun17-04, 03:21 PM

its simple remove the gene that causes "greed"

I want my greed; I want my hate; I want my pain; I want everything that many would consider taking out of our "genome." This is not a solution, we may as well castrate ourselves at birth if this were our mindset.
*Nico

Moonrat

Jun17-04, 08:28 PM

I want my greed; I want my hate; I want my pain; I want everything that many would consider taking out of our "genome." This is not a solution, we may as well castrate ourselves at birth if this were our mindset.
*Nico

hehe, reminds me of capt kirk in, what was it, star trek 3?

well, you want it you got it....but dont be surprised when you are not invited out to dinner more often...

Mista T

Jun18-04, 01:29 AM

Go to Japan. Friendly people. /end

Nicomachus

Jun18-04, 04:04 AM

hehe, reminds me of capt kirk in, what was it, star trek 3?

well, you want it you got it....but dont be surprised when you are not invited out to dinner more often...

Dinner? Blah blah blah. What the hell are you talking about. That was a rhetorical question, don't answer it. I don't care about Star Trek and I certainly don't care about what you have to say so stop talking about or to me in every thread you enter.
*Nico

Njorl

Jun18-04, 07:53 AM

What we need is a gene or meme or something to make us see the stranger as one of us, rather than as a thing to be feared and killed.

It has been happening for a long time.

Physical evolution has, for its simplest mechanism, preservation of the self - otherwise known as survival of the fittest. But it does not end there. Preservation of the genes is the real reward. To that end, many other traits have developed - preservation of offspring, of relatives, of relatives offspring etc. They share many similar genes with us. This led to families, packs, villages, and tribes. You see the "us" growing larger. I don't think it will take that long for the "us" to be all of humanity.

Njorl

Moonrat

Jun18-04, 04:20 PM

Dinner?
*Nico

Would love to! Where shall we dine?

loseyourname

Jun19-04, 12:03 AM

It has been happening for a long time.

Physical evolution has, for its simplest mechanism, preservation of the self - otherwise known as survival of the fittest. But it does not end there. Preservation of the genes is the real reward. To that end, many other traits have developed - preservation of offspring, of relatives, of relatives offspring etc. They share many similar genes with us. This led to families, packs, villages, and tribes. You see the "us" growing larger. I don't think it will take that long for the "us" to be all of humanity.

Njorl

I couldn't have said it better myself. Well, maybe I could have:

As far I know, the hypothesis being thrown out here is that men have evolved a certain group mentality. There is the in-group (family, tribe, country, race, etc.) and the out-group (everyone else). The idea is that we have developed a sense of fairness in dealing with our in-group while pitting ourselves against anyone who is not part of that group. This is used to explain the galling inconsistencies in, say, biblical morality. On the one hand, the Jews are told "thou shalt not kill." On the other, they are told to commit genocide on the native inhabitants of the land of Canaan. This is thought to be a result of their inborn tendency to behave morally toward members of their own in-group while attempting to destroy all other groups.

This is a very hopeful hypothesis in that there are indications that the idea of an in-group has grown over time to encompass a greater number of people. When men first emerged from the ranks of older primates, the only in-group was one's own tribe. That eventually grew to include larger and larger tribes (eventually ethnicities and ethnic nations). In time again this grew to include ideological groups, such as nations that are not based on ethnicity. While the moral behavior toward one's in-group is innate, the basis of that group is not. The hope is that as cultural barriers break down, men will eventually come to see themselves as primarily part of the entire human race, rather than some smaller group, and this hypothetical genetic imperative to behave morally toward one's in-group will produce a more peaceful and ethical world.

Obviously, the hypothesis needs some work, but if it's true, it could mean great things.

merak

Jun19-04, 08:05 AM

Merak,
What happens to anger if the greed-gene is eliminated?

I don't know boulder..it just seems greed causes most anger. if we destroy ourselvs\world and only two people were left alive to ask why ,they would most likely agree that in the end it was because of greed.

merak

Jun19-04, 08:19 AM

I want my greed; I want my hate; I want my pain; I want everything that many would consider taking out of our "genome." This is not a solution, we may as well castrate ourselves at birth if this were our mindset.
*Nico

The reason you want to keep those things is because you have all ways had them.what if you had never experienced hate or greed or pain. would you want to ?

selfAdjoint

Jun19-04, 09:25 AM

You would be live meat for any predator (human or otherwise) that had not been genetically sheepified.

loseyourname

Jun19-04, 04:25 PM

Why can't you have a defense instinct without greed?

Nicomachus

Jun20-04, 03:39 AM

The reason you want to keep those things is because you have all ways had them.what if you had never experienced hate or greed or pain. would you want to ?

I am not an idiot; I would not contend that I would necessarily want something that I knew nothing about or had ever experienced. However, I do not see the point and you are wrong that is not why I want to keep the qualities of humanity. Oh sure you could say that I am making an emotional-plea, but I am not. You seem to suggest that an unfeeling and sterile society is desirable as its own ends. Man suffers, man goes through all these kinds emotionals and feelings and hatred and so forth as that what makes up Man. You could take this away and have something else, but you are implying that something must be better if it avoids conflict. I contend that that is an absurd position. I think you are throwing the baby out with bathwater. If you would like to remove hate, greed, and pain then I suggest you consider destroying love, charity, and satisfactions as well. For what would these things be without the other? Yes, I could see my argument here as a bit flawed but I think if you still persist could present a more rigorous defense and criticism of your assertions.
*Nico

loseyourname

Jun20-04, 03:47 AM

You're starting to sound like a religious apologist defending God against the problem of evil.

Nicomachus

Jun20-04, 02:27 PM

You're starting to sound like a religious apologist defending God against the problem of evil.

Who, me? This is hardly the same case. Simply because you don't like what I have to say does not mean I committing the same fallacy as the apologist. I am discussing reality and not the supposed reality an omnipotent "first cause" entity would have the ability and propensity to create. Anyway, you didn't say anything of substance, which seems to be very popular, so I'll just disregard it.
*Nico

loseyourname

Jun20-04, 03:01 PM

Writing a paragraph about X is your idea of "disregarding" X?

You're arguing that a universe with evil is to be preferred over a universe with no evil because without evil, good things would have no meaning and so would not be as good. Is that not exactly the apologist's argument? Whether or not the argument is fallacious doesn't really matter. The fact is that we evolved to fit the universe we were given. If we had a universe with no evil, I can assure you that we would be perfectly fine with it. What you like because you happen to live in this universe is rather beside the point.

Nicomachus

Jun20-04, 04:40 PM

That really isn't what I'm aruing, although I would like to see an attempted refutation of that, bear in mind within that positon you cannot say "good things would not be as good" because, if you were to accept the premise, you would be committing the stolen concept fallacy. And no this is not exactly the same thing the apologists argue; I know all their arguments. I am discussing this as a practical matter and not this thought experiment you seem to think I am dicussing. I have yet to see any meritorious argument that a sterile race of humans that does not contain the previously mentioned qualities would be desirable over the current state of humanity. It seems to be a bunch of "wah wah, I don't like conflict."
*Nico

loseyourname

Jun20-04, 05:51 PM

selfAdjoint

Jun20-04, 09:03 PM

BoulderHead

Jun20-04, 10:12 PM

Would love to! Where shall we dine?

http://www.dineout.co.nz/restaurant.php?rest=1144
Where else?

:rofl:

Nec

Jun20-04, 10:39 PM

http://www.dineout.co.nz/restaurant.php?rest=1144
Where else?

:rofl:
I know Boulderhead is somewhere is the US but why New Zealand ?

Nicomachus

Jun21-04, 01:36 AM

The point is that you are saying it can't be shown to be favorable from the perspective you have given a world with the particular traits it has. Had you been born into a world with no evil, it should be rather obvious that you would not miss evil.

Now you don't need to tell me that you like conflict. That can easily be inferred from your posts. However, the argument seems to be that the human race would be better off without conflict, not that anybody would like that world more. A world in which all humans cooperated and shared resources would obviously be of benefit to the species. Asthetic appeal is another matter entirely.

huh? I conceded that I obviously would not miss evil if I did not know what it was or had no way to "feel" it, though I'm really not discussing evil but if that is your choice of terms then it is perfectly fine. Your funny remark about me enjoying conflict does not give your argument more sway. You can continue to misrepresent my position but you don't serve your argument in that way either. What I asked in the previous post was for someone to give a substantive argument for why a sterile race of humans is desirable, simply saying there will be no conflict is not sufficient. I don't know that it is desirable to have no possibility of conflict, or hate, or pain. Now if you had written "Well it is obviously better to have a race of humans which were nothing more than bland worker bees" I would respect your position more, though I find that ridiculous and unjustified. What I have seen, and not just in this thread, is that many of you are simply trying to find the "simplest solution" under the guise of what you all may think to be "scientific reasoning." Another example of this, though you did not write this loseyourname someone in the samd mindset did, asserted that it, paraphrasing, "Obviously it makes no sense for a creature not to welcome death after reproduction." I think the entire line of reasoning is more circular really. You are assuming that X must be better because it fits some kind of pseudo-scientific model of ought. In turn, you think I am being circular because I think you are incorrect because your position is not is, which is a misrepresentation. I simply do not accept the notion that the worker-bee model of society is more desirable as its own ends, I do not accept. You seem to allude that I would accept if I were thinking clearly and not holding on to my "desires," but such is not the case. You are assuming your conclusions. I do not accept this, simple. If I can be provided with some justication or arguments, then maybe, but all I have been presented with is "Well of course the sterile society is better because its sterile."
*Nico

Nicomachus

Jun21-04, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Moonrat
Would love to! Where shall we dine?

http://www.dineout.co.nz/restaurant.php?rest=1144
Where else?

:rofl:

Yep.
*Nico

loseyourname

Jun21-04, 01:58 AM

Bees and ants have a world where every unit (within a hive or nest) cooperates and shares. Meerkats paritally share this characteristic. I find the thought of a human race so dedicated to be pretty repulsive.

Your proposal seems to be based on a totally materialistic view of human needs. Once we get all the matter and energy shared out, all problems will cease, by direction of the genetic engineers. Ugh.

To be honest, I'm really just arguing with Nico for the sake of argument. I'm not proposing anything. Seriously, though, what's so wrong with the thought of dedicated human beings who cooperate with each other? It's really difficult for me to get a grasp on why you would find such a thing repulsive. Do you think you would somehow be less free?

loseyourname

Jun21-04, 02:05 AM

I simply do not accept the notion that the worker-bee model of society is more desirable as its own ends, I do not accept. You seem to allude that I would accept if I were thinking clearly and not holding on to my "desires," but such is not the case. You are assuming your conclusions. I do not accept this, simple. If I can be provided with some justication or arguments, then maybe, but all I have been presented with is "Well of course the sterile society is better because its sterile."
*Nico

I think you are arguing with someone else here. I don't recall saying anything about sterilizing workers and forming a strictly heirarchical society, or maybe you mean something other than worker-bee when you say worker-bee. If you think getting rid of greed and malice is somehow going to result in a Brave New World, I really don't know what to say to you.

Look at it this way. What is the purpose of most of our laws? They compel people to be fair and decent to each other, correct? That is all I'm asking. If genetics can help bring about such a state, why not? You might think it's artificial, but the simple fact is, you didn't choose the genome you have any more than you would choose one without greed and malice. Either way, you're constrained by what you're given. At least this way, humanity can have some say in the way they evolve, rather than simply leaving it up to chance.

sciart

Jun21-04, 02:21 AM

“Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.”　--A.Einstein
　because the second law of thermodynamics. produced high entropy（unkind)

--- I am from China :)
http://sciart.yeah.net/

selfAdjoint

Jun21-04, 09:27 AM

The second law is like "Every nail that sticks up is pounded down." It says that in isolated systems bland situations max out and special situations go away.

olde drunk

Jun21-04, 10:29 AM

Quick thought. Why would a world with conflict, but without violence (intended harm to any other creation) be bland or undesireable??

On quick examination I believe that we are always in some form of conflict with oursleves. Embracing a new idea that requires the redirection of our ego (the status quo from prior ideas). I suspect that conflict helps the conceptualization of new ideas.

if we have ambiguous feelings of an event or condition it is often the conflict of two or more ideas. this conflict motivates the creation of a new idea to reconcile the disharmony.

being mean and/or violent towards another does not improve the human condition. short term it may have materialistic value, however,it perpetuates itself to the point that you must constantly guard against being the next victim of violence. it seems that allowing or accepting violence at any level escalates to more and greater violence.

our short term gains in the recent wars have yet to yield a long term benefit. WWII may have been a necessity at the time, unfortunately, it also created the myth that we can solve most of the worlds problems by defeating the bad guy. Funny, but we never went to war with Russia and they seem to have changed the most in the evolution of government and social issues.

sorry, but i do not see a peaceful, energetic human race as being sterile. Hey, why fear something we haven't tried before??? these ^$*#!ing wars haven't really brought about a major change in society. Embrace peace, it's time for change.

love&peace,
olde drunk

confutatis

Jun21-04, 03:07 PM

What I have seen, and not just in this thread, is that many of you are simply trying to find the "simplest solution" under the guise of what you all may think to be "scientific reasoning." Another example of this, [...] someone in the same mindset did, asserted that it, paraphrasing, "Obviously it makes no sense for a creature not to welcome death after reproduction." I think the entire line of reasoning is more circular really.

Nico,

That someone would be me, but I didn't mean what you think I meant. I was simply criticizing the notion that evolution necessarily implies the existence of evil and suffering. When I said "it doesn't make sense", I meant it in the context of the theory.

As to your argument on this thread, I couldn't agree more with you: evil is the price we pay for goodness; pain is the price we pay for pleasure; hate is the price we pay for love. We may sometimes feel as if we're paying too high a price, but what we get in return is priceless.

Regards --

Nicomachus

Jun21-04, 11:52 PM

I think you are arguing with someone else here. I don't recall saying anything about sterilizing workers and forming a strictly heirarchical society, or maybe you mean something other than worker-bee when you say worker-bee. If you think getting rid of greed and malice is somehow going to result in a Brave New World, I really don't know what to say to you.

Look at it this way. What is the purpose of most of our laws? They compel people to be fair and decent to each other, correct? That is all I'm asking. If genetics can help bring about such a state, why not? You might think it's artificial, but the simple fact is, you didn't choose the genome you have any more than you would choose one without greed and malice. Either way, you're constrained by what you're given. At least this way, humanity can have some say in the way they evolve, rather than simply leaving it up to chance.

Well, I must admit the "worker bee" example was slightly archaic, it made sense to me but I did not really explain. What I am essentially arguing at this point is that there rammifications to changing humanity in that way, I do not think from a value stand point it would be worth. Changing humanity in that way, I think, would result in a Pyrrhic victory over "conflict" or whatever it is we are trying to abolish. I apologize if I have come off a bit harsh, however.
*Nico