Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Homo Sapiens is the Mad Ape
8 views
Skip to first unread message
DonH
May 25, 2012, 4:51:53 PM5/25/12
to
Well, that's the Thesis. What are the implications (assuming it is true)?
We are not the Darling of God, who created a whole Universe, just for us
(with lots of redundancy). Nor are we aTop an Evolutionary Tree.
What are we then? More of an Aberrant Offshoot.
Why Mad? And why Ape?
We are basically Mad, because we have an over-developed brain, linked
to primitive instincts, thus, as astronomer Fred Hoyle put it: a computer
with the instincts of a rat.
Or, as David Hume said: Reason is subordinate to the Passions.
Retroduction tends to be our most common form of Syllogism:
"Sentence first - verdict afterwards", as the Queen said (in "Alice").
=================================================
All humans are mad.
Some are madder than others.
Some are less mad than most.
No human is completely sane.
=================================================
"In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
"In the loony-bin, the half-wit rules."
======================================
Ape? Yes, better to view us as Simian, than the Other Apes as
Anthropoid.
Why? Because else we tend to delusions of Divine, whereas Apishness brings
us down to Earth.
================================================================
So, we mad apes do have glimmers of sanity and rationality, and should
cherish the moment.
We are not the Darling of God, who created a whole Universe, just for us
(with lots of redundancy). Nor are we aTop an Evolutionary Tree.
What are we then? More of an Aberrant Offshoot.
Why Mad? And why Ape?
We are basically Mad, because we have an over-developed brain, linked
to primitive instincts, thus, as astronomer Fred Hoyle put it: a computer
with the instincts of a rat.
Or, as David Hume said: Reason is subordinate to the Passions.
Retroduction tends to be our most common form of Syllogism:
"Sentence first - verdict afterwards", as the Queen said (in "Alice").
=================================================
All humans are mad.
Some are madder than others.
Some are less mad than most.
No human is completely sane.
=================================================
"In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
"In the loony-bin, the half-wit rules."
======================================
Ape? Yes, better to view us as Simian, than the Other Apes as
Anthropoid.
Why? Because else we tend to delusions of Divine, whereas Apishness brings
us down to Earth.
================================================================
So, we mad apes do have glimmers of sanity and rationality, and should
cherish the moment.
Giga
May 26, 2012, 4:41:52 AM5/26/12
to
"DonH" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:HhSvr.7264$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
Zinnic
May 26, 2012, 6:05:18 AM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 3:41 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "DonH" <donlhumphr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
Do you mean the sanity of a fox let loose in the hen house and the
slight madness of man who should 'know' better?
Forgive them (Father) for they know not what they do.
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "DonH" <donlhumphr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
slight madness of man who should 'know' better?
Forgive them (Father) for they know not what they do.
Zerkon
May 26, 2012, 8:58:38 AM5/26/12
to
In article <HhSvr.7264$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
donlhu...@bigpond.com says...
> What are we then?
>
What's this 'what' stuff and, to the point, what's this 'we' stuff, mad
man?
All humans are mad.
I am human.
I am mad
What is a normal evaluation of others by a mad person?
From what possible POV can anyone make the claim "All humans are mad"
while at the same time suggesting the claim as not one of insanity?
If all humans are mad then none are. The word becomes meaningless.
By your same proof via declarative I say "Most humans are not mad".
Quoting published proclamations by celebrates are equally vacant of a
reasoned position.
> We are not the Darling of God
If this is your reference point, drop the 'we', insert the first person
singular and refrain from projecting your own sense of god-sin-self upon
others. I and every one and thing I know and know of, btw, are the
Darlings of God.
You guys, including all your published heroes, who like to throw around
this idea of madness or insanity thinking it a form of cute, witty,
cynical, piercing observation on the human condition have arrived late
and are repeating the same stuff started over 2000 years ago. Now what?
I, for one, am sorry you all feel empty, defeated and cynical now that
your god-tit is gone and very concerned this idea has now become part of
social conditioning towards a drugged up, overly mediated society of the
anxiety riddled.
You all are being lied to and pandered.
donlhu...@bigpond.com says...
> What are we then?
>
What's this 'what' stuff and, to the point, what's this 'we' stuff, mad
man?
All humans are mad.
I am human.
I am mad
What is a normal evaluation of others by a mad person?
From what possible POV can anyone make the claim "All humans are mad"
while at the same time suggesting the claim as not one of insanity?
If all humans are mad then none are. The word becomes meaningless.
By your same proof via declarative I say "Most humans are not mad".
Quoting published proclamations by celebrates are equally vacant of a
reasoned position.
> We are not the Darling of God
singular and refrain from projecting your own sense of god-sin-self upon
others. I and every one and thing I know and know of, btw, are the
Darlings of God.
You guys, including all your published heroes, who like to throw around
this idea of madness or insanity thinking it a form of cute, witty,
cynical, piercing observation on the human condition have arrived late
and are repeating the same stuff started over 2000 years ago. Now what?
I, for one, am sorry you all feel empty, defeated and cynical now that
your god-tit is gone and very concerned this idea has now become part of
social conditioning towards a drugged up, overly mediated society of the
anxiety riddled.
You all are being lied to and pandered.
Dare
May 26, 2012, 10:21:53 AM5/26/12
to
"DonH" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:HhSvr.7264$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
How much longer?
Have these "delusions" given humans the ability
to imagine beyond what is to what could be...
to create and appreciate creation?
Seems to me it's not a bad trade-off, if madness it be.
> So, we mad apes do have glimmers of sanity and rationality, and should
> cherish the moment.
This "madness" had worked so far...
> cherish the moment.
How much longer?
Have these "delusions" given humans the ability
to imagine beyond what is to what could be...
to create and appreciate creation?
Seems to me it's not a bad trade-off, if madness it be.
Immortalist
May 26, 2012, 1:52:42 PM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 1:51 pm, "DonH" <donlhumphr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Well, that's the Thesis. What are the implications (assuming it is true)?
Is there any reason to assume that it is true?
> Well, that's the Thesis. What are the implications (assuming it is true)?
Giga
May 26, 2012, 4:11:56 PM5/26/12
to
"Zinnic" <zinni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b8793ba-d78e-45b4...@t35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Giga
May 26, 2012, 4:13:23 PM5/26/12
to
"Dare" <clyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jpqou5$t74$1...@dont-email.me...
DonH
May 26, 2012, 4:53:39 PM5/26/12
to
cause minimal harm to our ecology. However, our latent madness is now
becoming manifest.
Back in 1800 AD, the world human population numbered about one billion.
Today, it is seven billion, and spread world-wide. Likely, nine billion
by 2050 AD.
We cannot move without impacting adversely on our shrinking habitat.
How's the Amazon Jungle going? Going, going, ... gone? Leaving a new
Sahara Desert?
The debate about Global Warming is typical. We don't want to know,
especially that it may be Anthropogenic. Meanwhile, we pump billions of
tonnes of smoke into the air, and think it won't affect anything. We'll
eventually "drown" in our own waste products - of which air pollution is
only one example.
The oceans are being fished out, using trawlers, massive nets, long
lines, and computer spotting of shoals. Arable land is vanishing, and
weather becoming erratic and extreme.
The "madness" of any Species is: inability to Adapt to Environment.
We now expect Nature to adapt to us; this is possible, but only up to a
limited extent.
All indicators are: that we will fail the Ultimate Test.
I even predict when: Decimation by 2050 AD, Extinction by 2099.
Unless - Homo Sap can drastically reverse current trends, but, our huge
world population is the inertia which will prevent this.
What do China and India fear most? Not war, but lack of food and
water. Their huge populations are a strength, but also a weakness.
But our basic flaw is an over-large brain, linked to primitive
instincts, and this may doom us.
M Purcell
May 26, 2012, 11:18:47 PM5/26/12
to
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 10:52:42 AM UTC-7, Immortalist wrote:
> On May 25, 1:51 pm, "DonH" <donlhumphr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Well, that's the Thesis. What are the implications (assuming it is true)?
>
> Is there any reason to assume that it is true?
Any reason to reject the assumption? Seems a bit argumentative; perhaps a latent anger? The practice of war seems to substantiate the original assumption.
> On May 25, 1:51 pm, "DonH" <donlhumphr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Well, that's the Thesis. What are the implications (assuming it is true)?
>
> Is there any reason to assume that it is true?
Giga
May 27, 2012, 5:30:37 AM5/27/12
to
news:Apbwr.7312$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
Beyond a nearby supernova or deliberate wiping out of the whole human
population by some agency (us, AI, ET, God etc) it is very hard to see how
humanity could become extinct. That is just drama.
population by some agency (us, AI, ET, God etc) it is very hard to see how
humanity could become extinct. That is just drama.
0 new messages