Jump to content

We are animals . . . but we don’t have to act like it


VCH

Recommended Posts

Originally Posted By: waterplant
We can't help but respond to how people perceive us just as how we create an image of someone based on how we see them. Someone who, for example, begins to take better care of themselves would potentially become more approachable and garner more positive interactions. Inward changes would surely follow. Haircuts and new wardrobes often do cause changes that extend beyond the superficial as does the continual process of growing comfortable with who we are.

Oh, people change all the time. And those changes can be very drastic and happen practically overnight. But there are very few cases where the difference between a person pre-change and post-change are complete enough to think of them separately instead of together.

Dunno. Maybe Dikiyoba is using identity in a different sense than Student of Trinity is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 237
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

SoT's post wasn't about changing yourself by changing your presentation, it was about starting afresh if you want to try a new persona. In the real world that's hard. You have a history, you have personal details that are hard to change, and you have a life you can't easily just abandon. Online, all it takes is a new account with all new account details and all that can be used to trace you is your posting style. Oh, and your IP address.

 

—Alorael, who sees no problem with having everyone say they don't care what Thuryl does. Nobody should, and if his difficulties revolve around people in his offline life caring very much, it's a nice sentiment. No, it doesn't actually help Thuryl, but sometimes the thought really does count. And Thuryl, no matter what, you will be loved (and hated) here for being Thuryl. (Unless you start living in a proxy account...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Poached Salmon
If you are going to seriously look at the behavior of Jesus, Mohammed, or any other prophet as being a preferable extreme of human behavior, you are projecting your own desires for the human race. There is no reason to think that their actions are (as an absolute) more preferable than those of the folks I mentioned.


I could flip this argument around. Seeing selfish and hurtful behavior as the norm and as human nature is our projection. Considering how many of the beliefs of recent millennia have reflected us to ourselves as wicked and incurring the wrath of our gods, isn't it more likely that deep in our collective psyche at this point, we have a likelihood to project our "badness" as our norm?

I'm thinking most of us in our own heart would prefer the Dali Llama to Stalin. The behavior of saintly sorts isn't some anomalous extreme, it's the way we actually behave under a different paradigm of belief. Such people point us toward our real nature and potential. Like Jesus is said to have said, "You'll do these things and greater." The reason most of us have not, is we haven't believed our examples yet. We continue to believe in superiority/inferiority, lack, gods who need something from us, and separation from all other life. We continue to behave accordingly. The worst of the worst demonstrate the extreme of what fear in the heart and driving the ego creates. Any of us is capable of such extreme. Not because, it's "our nature" to do so, but because it is the natural product of fear, as opposed to love.

As for how rare or extreme our positive examples are, they may represent a pinnacle of potential, but I don't think they are as far removed from human experience today, depending on the company you keep. I've known truly amazing, wonderful people in my life who have demonstrated a lot of the same spirit and behavior as some of our historical icons. I can see it in anyone, actually, when any layers obscuring it are stripped away. It's curious to me how reluctant we are to even embrace the possibility that we are better in essence than we think we are. We dare not. And because we can't see it in ourselves or believe it in ourselves or in our most glowing examples, we don't produce it for ourselves. Kind of a catch-22, don't you think?

Originally Posted By: downward dog
HEY POOR, HEY POOR, HEY POOR YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE POOR ANYMORE.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDGSDFGDSFHGSFBD


Who are you, and what have you done with Slartucker? I see your Front 242 and raise you Nine Inch Nails: "God is dead, and no one cares." Though really, the oft non-contextually quoted Nietzsche said it first.

Originally Posted By: sporefrog

First off, have you noticed how descriptions of people and their actions tend to get more and more fantastical the further back they happened to live? I don't for a minute think it's likely that all or most of the things ascribed to Buddha or Jesus actually happened, but I don't want that to confuse the issue. Take a more recent, well-established example like Gandhi. Everything that I am saying is totally compatible with someone like that, or any non-supernatural account of someone like Jesus or Buddha (i.e. a revolutionary moral leader) existing. The sheer recognition that our genetics have, for all intents and purposes, not changed in a few tens of thousands of years, yet we have gone from tribal hunters and gatherers to our present day society certainly speaks to the plasticity of the human brain.


I'm working my way backwards to your posts. I'll get to the first one separately. I don't buy historical accounts as literal or unadulterated truths of what was. We've had debates about Bibles and whatnot here in the past. I think we have a lot of truth and wisdom in the world naturally marred and mixed by what humans also do with such things subsequently. I think enough of the reality remains to point to something, at the least. I do see that the essential message of these persons from our past is always the same at deepest essence, from culture to culture. I observe that whatever Jesus actually did was potent enough to spawn a massive shift in thought and belief over time. I believe something startling and compelling enough took place to capture a lot of people's imagination and change the world. How? The only way. By changing our beliefs about ourselves and what is possible for us. I think we've taken steps in the direction we want to go.

I agree, we demonstrate tremendous flexibility with the minds we have. Our beliefs have been evolving dramatically for millennia, and resultingly, our institutions and behaviors have shifted dramatically. As we think new thoughts, we do new things. As conscious, self-directed beings now, must not the focus be on the beliefs we hold which drive all our choices? Are you suggesting that our genes drive and override us despite what our minds are doing?

I see everything at this point in human development as pinned upon a battle for the mind. Nothing else makes any real or lasting difference, if we can't change our minds.

-S-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
But there are very few cases where the difference between a person pre-change and post-change are complete enough to think of them separately instead of together.


Agreed. It has been said that people through life work to re-invent themselves but always just end up being the same person. Many changes occur without any intention on our part or as an unintentional consequence of some seemingly innocuous act. Bob Dylan mentions in a song 'the crossroads of my doorstep' and I can't recall the similar phrase in LOTR about leaving one's door. Sometimes life decides for us then proceeds to carry us whether we agree or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thuryl/Lilith, have you yet connected with any folks who have struggled with the same issues?

 

I think transgender is a really difficult topic for most non-trans folks to wrap our heads around, largely because of the nature of the thing -- most folks who are finally living as they feel they should just want to get on with their lives and not deal with the trauma that came before; they're not as vocal about their experiences as, say, the gay community.

 

Which means that a lot of folks you interact with don't *know* they have trans friends or co-workers, so they don't have a context to even begin understanding. It also means you probably don't have a ready-made community of support around gender identity in the way that someone struggling with sexual orientation would.

 

My pastoral/counseling connections are mostly in Massachusetts, but I'm happy to help you figure out how to make that sort of connection where you are, or at least to get you in virtual communication with folks elsewhere, if you think that might be helpful. I hope our general support is helpful, but talking to folks with actual experience like yours might be even better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to sporefrog's other recent post.

 

Originally Posted By: sporefrog
What I want you to consider, is that you can reach all of the conclusions you're making about how such a belief system might look without presupposing anything without evidence, like the existence of a God-ish force integrated into all life.

OK. All that's vital is for us to believe that you can't separate what you do to others from yourself, that there is no true separation or natural betterness between us based on beliefs or cultures or national boundaries or skin color or gender or sexuality or anything else. When we look into the face of another and see ourselves looking into a mirror, we behave differently than when we speak in terms of us and them. I don't really care how we arrive at this belief.

 

It might be presupposing to suggest anyone with beliefs has them without evidence. If you mean materialistic evidence that we can measure with our machines, sure, we'll likely never have evidence. But evidence abounds on any number of other levels of experience or knowability. A most simple example: Love exists. Prove it by scientific method. Yet, who will argue that love is a huge part of who we are, what we do, and what we experience? Beauty exists. Measure it. Music is magical. Make a machine to create the perfect song.

 

I resonate with your discussion of how tribalism (expanded in nationalism) has been a significant culprit in much of our behavior. I see tribalism not as a first cause, but as an intermediate effect which is also a cause that has further effect. If that makes sense. For me, that still doesn't appear to address the curious instinct in plenty of diverse people to risk their life in a moment to save a stranger, someone not of their tribe, culture, faith, skin color, or anything in particular apart from a shared humanity.

 

Originally Posted By: sporefrog
The fact that we have these tendencies to begin with is clear evidence to me that there is nothing but neutrality at work in nature.

I'd be curious to hear you address specifically how belief fits into this. What do you see causing, driving, controlling, or altering our beliefs? Do you even agree that it's our collective beliefs that are driving our behavior now as conscious, choosing beings? Are you suggesting we basically collectively operate on autopilot, despite anything our minds are doing, that our "nature", which is indifferent, drives us despite the convictions of the human mind? I'm not clear yet on your view on this aspect.

 

I enjoyed how you depicted ways in which we do affect and shape one another. Poetically stated.

 

Originally Posted By: sporefrog
This reality exists with or without a belief in the supernatural.
Sure. There remains an absolute reality despite what anyone believes about it. I don't believe at all in the concept of "supernatural." For me, it's oxymoronic. Everything that actually is, is of course natural. And to me, and others, everything is also quite "magical." Yesterday's magic is often today's science. Everything we conceive is relative to and frequently limited by our other conceptions of the moment.

 

-S-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: jlsgaladriel
Thuryl/Lilith, have you yet connected with any folks who have struggled with the same issues?


only online. but i've been given some helpful leads to follow up on here in Melbourne. at this point i'm still pretty much terrified of talking to anyone about this face to face though
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting a new account really does let you start fresh here, especially if you manage to change your IP. Changing usernames and avatars with the same account is not a complete identity change, but it makes more of a difference here than a new haircut does in real life. Identity has a lot less inertia here, since after all it's only a small fraction of one's real identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
I think transgender is a really difficult topic for most non-trans folks to wrap our heads around


Trying to imagine all that Thuryl is facing right now, and it's on a spectrum between mind-boggling and impossible, and somehow every point passes through terrifying. Traditional offers of support - cake and/or hugs - are hard to give over the internet from the other side of the world. All I can say is good luck, you get through this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Alorael
all that can be used to trace you is your posting style.

But that's huge. Change what you say and how you say it and you don't have to change anything else to see results. (It may take some time, but it takes time to establish a new identity too.) Fail to change that, and even with different account people are going to connect you with the old persona and everything that goes with it. Signatures and avatars definitely say something about you, and you can change them to send a message, but ultimately they're just extras.

Of course, the real, underlying point of contention here is probably the fact that Dikiyoba doesn't separate the Internet out from the rest of life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
Of course, the real, underlying point of contention here is probably the fact that Dikiyoba doesn't separate the Internet out from the rest of life.


So what did your classmates think of the large lizard creature taking notes?
Referring to yourself in the third person for parts of the conversations? smile

Everyone compartmentalizes their life. The degree of overlap may vary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's always been something about the way that other people related to me that made me vaguely uncomfortable. the way i was perceived, the expectations people held, everything seemed somehow alien to me. it was especially bad with boys: most of my friends were girls because the way they interacted socially just made more sense to me somehow. and around the time i was 7 or 8 i, never having heard the word "transgender" at that point, somehow got the distinct idea that i ought to have been a girl.

 

it got worse with puberty. my family were always complimenting me about how tall i was growing and how i was developing facial hair and all of that, as if it were something i had any control over. being seen in public and interacting with people face-to-face just felt increasingly wrong in a way i couldn't explain. i withdrew socially and spent a lot of time online.

 

i've spent a lot of time trying to understand myself and work out what's going on with me and for about the past two years i've consistently suspected that i might be transgendered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: synergy
As conscious, self-directed beings now, must not the focus be on the beliefs we hold which drive all our choices? Are you suggesting that our genes drive and override us despite what our minds are doing?


I'm trying to figure out the specifics of some of the various things you are suggesting. That's why I might be addressing certain things that you do not actually think -- as you say, you do not believe in anything supernatural. But if someone who believes in witches and green aliens on mars says they don't believe in the supernatural because witches and green aliens actually exist, you can see how that would be confusing tongue

In the same vein, when you ask whether I believe our genes drive what our minds are capable of doing, in some sense I'd absolutely say yes. I certainly agree our minds are capable of a near limitless breadth of imagination, but take this statement:

Originally Posted By: synergy
"I believe something startling and compelling enough took place to capture a lot of people's imagination and change the world. How? The only way. By changing our beliefs about ourselves and what is possible for us."


If you're suggesting we can try to understand our tendencies towards anger, violence, tribalism, and our quickness to focus on the immediate future instead of the longterm, and work to minimize them, then sure. If you think, through the power of our minds alone, we can telepathically harness the sun's energy, violate the laws of physics, and eliminate the need to breath oxygen (or the capacity to be a jerk), then no, our biology (and genes) place tenuous but real limits on what we are capable of. Maybe we can change our biology some day, but for now everything we can do is because our genes build our brains/bodies, which give us the capacity to do it. That includes all of our emotions, all the colors we can see, and certainly the starting framework for how our brains function. Babies learn the language they are exposed to because it is hardwired. Gene's obviously don't place ideas in our heads or any other such oversimplifications, however.

Originally Posted By: synergy
that there is no true separation or natural betterness between us based on beliefs or cultures or national boundaries or skin color or gender or sexuality or anything else.


Aren't you, in some sense, suggesting your beliefs are better than many of those who came before you? I think treating everyone better is a better idea than enslaving people who have a different skin color than you, and I am willing to stand up and condemn the practice of dumping acid on women who show skin in public. I will certainly say that many beliefs are better than those.

Originally Posted By: synergy

It might be presupposing to suggest anyone with beliefs has them without evidence. If you mean materialistic evidence that we can measure with our machines, sure, we'll likely never have evidence.


This is just us not agreeing on what we mean by the term evidence. But what I was really getting at here, is many people will say something to the effect of, "If nature really has no purpose or there really is no God or my favorite supernatural explanation isn't real, then morals don't exist, or there's no reason for people to be nice to each other, or my worldview no longer has any foundation." And I think this is a silly argument. I was simply suggesting that advocating a more inclusive general mindset, or explaining the existence of figures like Buddha does not require anything outside of human nature, and does not require an overarching purpose to the universe. There is plenty of "materialistic" evidence to support this, and there is plenty of "materialistic" evidence to caution us against our own inclinations to see design and purpose where there probably isn't any.

Oh, and I just read the second half of your post, and to comment really quick your statement about us operating on autopilot or something like: that isn't what I believe at all. I'm off to bed now though, so it'll have to wait 'til tomorrow smile

Until then, cheers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Dikiyoba is right about posting style being the bigger part of online identity. But that's an elusive thing. Once you take away a few persistent gimmicks, which are really elements comparable to avatars and sigs, it immediately gets harder to recognize a style.

 

If we assume that the present discussion is not about sustaining awkward fake styles just to deceive people, then general level of language skill is going to be evident fairly quickly. But beyond that, it's tough. Even several months of regular posting here simply doesn't provide enough data to recognize a person, unless you know in advance that they are one of a small number of people.

 

On the other hand, human beings instinctively assign identities quite easily, given minimal cues. I was once part of a Command Post Exercise, where a few people sit in a van talking on the radio and marking up big maps, simulating a command post in battle. We knew that all the couple dozen units with whom we were talking were actually being played by the same two guys in another van, and all we were getting from them were terse formulaic messages anyway, but still after a couple of hours I had firm mental images of many of the different commanders whose units I was mapping. I can still clearly recall what an incompetent dope that call sign 8 was; when in fact all that happened was that the guys playing him forgot about him for half an hour or so, and this made him report late.

 

So I don't think we usually have enough data here to really recognize an identity from posts, but we have plenty of cues from which to leap to conclusions about identity. I bet that changing the cues goes further towards changing identity online than one might think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
i like how there are now three discussions going on in this thread and they're all somehow coexisting peacefully


Yeah, I'm not normally one of the tl;dr folks, but the synergy/sporefrog discussion is just too long for me to be interested in reading on a computer screen, so I'm skipping over it. I'm betting I'm not the only one... smile

I think the "online identity" thread spun off from the gender identity one, though, so that coexistence sort of makes sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sporefrog: On "supernatural." I like wordplay, but I also like transparency. There are probably a number of things I accept as natural, or at least as possible, which you would relegate to the supernatural/unreal/or wishful thinking. There is at least one thing that has happened to me physically and demonstrably which most people would relegate to the category of "supernatural."

 

Originally Posted By: sporefrog
Aren't you, in some sense, suggesting your beliefs are better than many of those who came before you? I think treating everyone better is a better idea than enslaving people who have a different skin color than you, and I am willing to stand up and condemn the practice of dumping acid on women who show skin in public. I will certainly say that many beliefs are better than those.

 

Sure, okay, we'd agree. And doesn't estimation of "better" always depend on the sponsoring beliefs? Those who dump acid on women are convinced they are doing the right thing according to their belief. Terms like good/bad/better are all relativistic to something. We'd have to agree on what that something is. As I mentioned earlier, I try not to use those qualitative comparative terms much, but usually when I do, as in this case, I'm only looking at what the stated goal is, and how whatever we're doing is actually accomplishing it. The bottom line is always simply what works.

 

Overall, as human beings, we say we are for peace, freedom, and equality in the world. Would we not agree that the majority of human beings want the same basic things? I'd actually argue that at our deepest core we all do desire the same things, whether aware of them or not. We have all kinds of laws, beliefs, customs, institutions, and so forth in place, which presumably should reflect who we claim we are trying to be in the world. The only real thing to measure is, how's it working? If it's not working, why not? I'm saying there are underlying beliefs hosting all those other things I just listed, which are not resulting in the kind of peace and freedom in the world we claim we value and believe in. So, yes, there is a "better" belief system relative to our stated goal.

 

If we believe we are animals fighting over resources, dog eat dog style, that might is right, to the victor go the spoils, history is written by the winners, survival of the fittest, that the solution to an "evil" is to propagate more of the same evil (kill to stop killing), well, again, all I can ask, is how do these work for us when we live by such beliefs? I'm interested in what actually works for the experience we agree we want. I don't see our genes forcing us to plunder and kill one another and poop in our own nest. I see that our beliefs, including ones about our genes, can contribute to us doing that though. As the title says, we are animals, but we don't have to act like it. We have this conscious mind that chooses now.

 

And many say it also loves and sees nobility and higher purpose in being. I personally hold that all persons are deserving of love, respect, and honor unconditionally. That's the definition of love really—unconditional esteem. But whether one believes in anything grandiose about our existence or not, the great majority of us still desire peace, freedom, and equality to be our experience. I think in some ways, our genetic explanation/excuse for our behavior is merely an updated, materialistic variation of "the devil made me do it." No less conveniently designed to absolve us from the consequences of the choosing we are doing. Psychologically, our very clever ego loves anything that takes the threat of shame from itself, and that includes accountability.

 

Originally Posted By: sporefrog
many people will say something to the effect of, "If nature really has no purpose or there really is no God or my favorite supernatural explanation isn't real, then morals don't exist, or there's no reason for people to be nice to each other, or my worldview no longer has any foundation." And I think this is a silly argument.

 

I read you. Can you understand how someone would think and feel this way? I think it points to an actuality that people living by some external code can have a hard time admitting: we're ultimately making all this up and deciding for ourselves—our thoughts, ideas, and beliefs about everything. If we've lived under a belief system that something other than ourselves is deciding, creating and controlling our experience for ourselves, then it can be threatening, even devastating, to consider the stark, awesome responsibility we actually hold if we embrace that it is in our own hands and no other's. It can be a major existential crisis. I'm speaking from experience here, because I've been through something like this in my own life, having spent my early years believing in a traditional sort of God who was shaping my life. It is not easy to go through, and it again points to the inestimable power of belief over each of us to shape our perception and experience for our self. We're all in this together. People deserve mercy, patience, and understanding for being in whatever mindset they are in. Unless we believe they don't. See my point? Any actuality underlying it all, is in one sense, irrelevant.

 

The bottom line again, is no matter whether we believe in an outwardly mandated, universally existant morality or not, we collectively wind up deciding as humans what is moral for ourselves and order our world around these decisions. When our concept of morality is shaped dominantly by fearful beliefs about ourselves or our gods, we are going to get results that...well, we've seen the results so far. Mixed at best. Utterly horrific at worst.

 

I keep thinking I'm about spent on the topic, but then get immersed again. My field is psychology, and I see myself steering more and more in that direction. Until your next thoughts, cheers reciprocated.

 

-S-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the points I tried to get across in the original letter was we are as much a part of nature as any other species. And that the world is not composed of us (the evil monsters) and them (the cute, cuddly, wonderful, always in balance species). Other species are every bit as "nasty" as we may be. The difference is we can do something about it.

 

I don't like it when people point to nature and say how wonderful everything is and how if only we returned to that everything would be great. Our ability to think allows us to work for the good of the species, other species, and the world. This uniqueness should be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: jlsgaladriel
I'm betting I'm not the only one.


No, I dropped out of the tl;dr conversation after my brain exploded a few pages back. Still can't grow any of those chloroplasts, either. And I'd say it's closer to four discussions, because there's the original point of the thread too. tongue

Originally Posted By: Phanes
An inordinate amount of posts seem to be dedicated to how we won't care what Thuryl does.


I resent the implications of this. There is a very important difference between not caring what someone does because you just flat-out don't care about them, and not caring what someone does because it will not change how you see them. In this case, I think it's the latter. It is for me, at any rate.

Originally Posted By: VCH
One of the points I tried to get across in the original letter was we are as much a part of nature as any other species. And that the world is not composed of us (the evil monsters) and them (the cute, cuddly, wonderful, always in balance species). Other species are every bit as "nasty" as we may be. The difference is we can do something about it.

I don't like it when people point to nature and say how wonderful everything is and how if only we returned to that everything would be great. Our ability to think allows us to work for the good of the species, other species, and the world. This uniqueness should be used.


See, I read this and I still got the impression that you think we're separate from nature. If not separate, than at least some sort of potential regulating mechanism within the system. But then we just get into the definition of nature, which would honestly just require another thread.

And yes, other species can be much nastier, but on a smaller scale. It's hard to top parasitic wasps, in my book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Ephesos
No, I dropped out of the tl;dr conversation after my brain exploded a few pages back. Still can't grow any of those chloroplasts, either. And I'd say it's closer to four discussions, because there's the original point of the thread too. tongue

Well, now it's five because we're discussing the number of discussions too. tongue

Dikiyoba.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

E - Personally I find it to be more respectful to have discussions on Thuryl's dilemma over AIM. It certainly leads to fewer public manglings of thoughts, and allows for the flow in conversation which is most suited to this type of situation. Since threads are styled after pen-pal type letter writing, with the expectation of time-passage between posts, it seems more distant to me. AIM is more like a phone call, but without the awkward "wow, you sure sound funny."

 

Synergy - I respectfully disagree with your assertion that

Quote:

Overall, as human beings, we say we are for peace, freedom, and equality in the world. Would we not agree that the majority of human beings want the same basic things? I'd actually argue that at our deepest core we all do desire the same things, whether aware of them or not. We have all kinds of laws, beliefs, customs, institutions, and so forth in place, which presumably should reflect who we claim we are trying to be in the world. The only real thing to measure is, how's it working? If it's not working, why not? I'm saying there are underlying beliefs hosting all those other things I just listed, which are not resulting in the kind of peace and freedom in the world we claim we value and believe in

because you are describing society, and not human beings. We have discovered that we don't, as individuals, play well with others. We just don't. So, we make up rules to govern our actions, and with our swelled heads are capable of remembering (for the most part) those rules and living within their proscribed bondaries throughout our lives.

Individual human beings are NOT inclined toward peace, harmony, and love. They are inclined toward survival and procreation.

Just, avoiding word-play, and making sure the discussion is as specific as possible. Call it rule-making, if you will. smile

 

VCH - I agree with your assertion, except that other species will also form societies and exhibit one behavior with members of the home-group, and a different set of behaviors with non-members.

 

Dikiyoba - I applaud your counting ability.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Personally I find it to be more respectful to have discussions on Thuryl's dilemma over AIM.


...So, those of us who rarely IM, who don't know Lilith's AIM name, should have ignored a clearly important statement (s)he chose to make in the forums?

My heavens, don't make troubles where there aren't any.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salmon, okay, but you're also highlighting my central point. We have a belief around "human nature" that says, "We just don't/can't get along based on our nature." And as should be amply clear, I'm asserting that it is our belief that this is true that makes it true for us. If we held a different belief, we'd find we did and could get along. This is the power of consciousness and choice. It should be evident that this is a chicken and egg argument. Which came first, the "nature" or the belief? All we can look to (so far) are those smaller scale examples around us of how people live and "get along" who hold a different belief. Monks in a monastery, as just one example. I see evidence that belief overrules the devil that makes us do it. The belief is the devil.

 

-S-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
I resent the implications of this. There is a very important difference between not caring what someone does because you just flat-out don't care about them, and not caring what someone does because it will not change how you see them. In this case, I think it's the latter. It is for me, at any rate.


You're late.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: jlsgaladriel
Quote:
Personally I find it to be more respectful to have discussions on Thuryl's dilemma over AIM.


...So, those of us who rarely IM, who don't know Lilith's AIM name, should have ignored a clearly important statement (s)he chose to make in the forums?

My heavens, don't make troubles where there aren't any.


Dude, you even quoted the part where I said "Personally," so don't make this about people other than me. I can offer a different perspective to E, right? I don't just have to do that via /clan chat, do I?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Synergy
We have a belief around "human nature" that says, "We just don't/can't get along based on our nature." And as should be amply clear, I'm asserting that it is our belief that this is true that makes it true for us. If we held a different belief, we'd find we did and could get along. This is the power of consciousness and choice. It should be evident that this is a chicken and egg argument. Which came first, the "nature" or the belief? All we can look to (so far) are those smaller scale examples around us of how people live and "get along" who hold a different belief. Monks in a monastery, as just one example. I see evidence that belief overrules the devil that makes us do it. The belief is the devil.

-S-
Originally Posted By: Ephesos
*headdesk*
QFT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the vexation. Is it unreasonable to say that the statement "Our genetics make us do undesirable things we can't stop" is a belief some of us hold? Or is the vexation due to believing it is an obvious fact, which I am being obtuse for failing to accept? Salmon, do you categorize your statement about human nature as a belief, or as a fact? I'd like to be clear on that part.

 

-S-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature is a fuzzy term. It can mean "the natural world," as in all things not supernatural or spiritual. For the secular among us, that's everything. Nature can also mean "stuff that is not human, human-made, or excessively human-affected, preferably in tones of green and brown." The latter obviously excludes us, and the former obviously does not. It's incumbent upon anyone invoking nature to be clear about this or, better yet, not invoke nature.

 

—Alorael, who is starting to think that some of Synergy's beliefs would benefit from or derive more clarity from a more solid grounding in psychology and sociology. Beliefs do have power, but the power isn't some extrinsic thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Dude...


Well, speaking of gender identity issues, I must admit noone's ever called me dude.

Quote:
posted on a public forum, as part of a discussion: don't make this about people other than me.


Personally, I think salmon tastes better baked, with just a little lemon and fresh-ground pepper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spring salmon is superb cooked over an open fire on the beach, immediately after being caught. Fall salmon, once it enters the river, starts losing fat reserves, and does benefit from seasonings, but ocean caught salmon is my favorite for smoking, grilling, or canning. Atlantic salmon, or farmed, is what I suspect you reference, and either would be better baked.

 

Poached, of course, refers not to the cooking method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: jlsgaladriel
Well, speaking of gender identity issues, I must admit noone's ever called me dude.

Really? "Dude" isn't gender-neutral yet, but it's getting there.

Originally Posted By: Salmon
Dikiyoba - I applaud your counting ability.

Dikiyoba is watching closely and hopes that Ephesos continues to win. tongue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll dissect the quote, if it helps.

 

Originally Posted By: Salmon
We have discovered that we don't, as individuals, play well with others. We just don't.

 

Please specify the reason that individuals "just don't play well." Are you saying groups, or "society" plays well?

 

Originally Posted By: Salmon
Individual human beings are NOT inclined toward peace, harmony, and love. They are inclined toward survival and procreation.

 

How can you know what goes on inside any other individual for certain? Is your explanation the only possible explanation for what you observe? Is it an absolute reality or a projection based upon a belief, a meaning made out of what you observe?

 

It looks like your suggestion is that the only thing that gives an illusion of peaceful or harmonious inclinations is collectivized enforcement of order? Am I reading you wrongly?

 

-S-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Delicious Salmon
Spring salmon is superb cooked over an open fire on the beach, immediately after being caught. Fall salmon, once it enters the river, starts losing fat reserves, and does benefit from seasonings, but ocean caught salmon is my favorite for smoking, grilling, or canning. Atlantic salmon, or farmed, is what I suspect you reference, and either would be better baked.

Poached, of course, refers not to the cooking method.


Salmon is only good if you have a skilled filleter. Bones make the meat useless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Synergy
Okay, I'll dissect the quote, if it helps.

Originally Posted By: Salmon
We have discovered that we don't, as individuals, play well with others. We just don't.


Please specify the reason that individuals "just don't play well." Are you saying groups, or "society" plays well?
I don't pretend to have discovered this reason, and I'm not drawing any conclusions about groups.
Originally Posted By: Synergy
Originally Posted By: Salmon
Individual human beings are NOT inclined toward peace, harmony, and love. They are inclined toward survival and procreation.


How can you know what goes on inside any other individual for certain? Is your explanation the only possible explanation for what you observe? Is it an absolute reality or a projection based upon a belief, a meaning made out of what you observe?
Studying their actions, which we believe are a true indication of internal processes, unless we want to rationalize that individuals are all acting falsely. Of course there could be other explanations, I'm not a narcissist, but I think (obviously) that the one I provide is the most likely explanation. Yup, just observation of human history.

Originally Posted By: Synergy
It looks like your suggestion is that the only thing that gives an illusion of peaceful or harmonious inclinations is collectivized enforcement of order? Am I reading you wrongly?

I don't know if that is the only thing, but it is the thing I cited.

Heck, isn't this /section/ of the thread some kind of indication that humans are interested in promoting their interests above those of their fellows? I certainly don't see you admitting that you could be wrong, which would be a way of keeping the peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...