The Stem of Existence
Joseph H
We tell stories, concoct myths, embellish legends; we construct
profound philosophies, devize complicated theologies; we establish vast
sagas of nationhood and race; we draw up detailed descriptions of
rights and privileges - hell, we even created something as far-fetched
as "natural rights", as if such a thing could exist.....
It's a considerable skill. It describes us (or enables us to describe
ourselves) - but it doesn't define us. The skill itself defines us. The
skill, the capacity to create, is what we added to the stem of
existence.
Wha?
What's the stem of existence? It's what emerged from the past, all
that's involved in the possibility and the construction and development
of life, all the intricacies of matter and of the genomes, our's and
others', that enables life, as we witness it, to thrive.
Nothing of our creativity impacted on this stem. It preceded us. But
what we drew from it - our intelligence and our afore-mentioned
creativity - enabled, and enables, us to know it and to add to it in a
deliberate manner never before possible.
But such a consciousness is new. For millennia we blithely inflicted
our ignorance on the stem. We spun fantasies and fabrications as
required. We should not disdain this falsifying exercise. It played a
vast role in our colonising of the planet. The fabrication of myths, of
heavens, of hells, of rights, of prohibitions, of sacred roles, of vast
privileges, of lowly status...all contributed to the human effort to
construct the near-global society we observe today.
And now in turn, at the onset of this new global age, with vast
challenges before us, we need this new consciousness. It will once
again be an act of creation - but it cannot be a fabrication. It must
see our abilities, and the opportunities and privileges stemming from
these abilities, and it must see that we have vast role as a species
in ther future of the planet and, indeed, in the future of the
universe itself.
Joseph H.
ralph
Joseph H <jos...@humanisation.org> writes
>Hey, we create....
>
Happy New Year, Joseph.
--
ralph
Joseph H
Hi, ralph, good posting! In reply I would add the following......
I have suggested that all our "creations" - our stories, our beliefs
etc - are appendages to the stem of existence. They embellish it; they
suggest meaning; they modify harshness. In the absence of knowledge and
in the presence of need we have been free to embellish as we wish. Who
would contradict us? Who would stand in the way of a good story? Thus,
our creativity has been a constant resource during our time on the
planet.
Central to what I say, of course, is my belief that most of what we
created was ....wrong, false, an error, an illusion. But this is not to
say that our creations didn´t (a) serve a very useful purpose and (b)
weren´t very often a true depiction of reality. Generally we created
what was most appropriate or most needed at the time. Thus, during our
early isolated wanderings on the planet we embellished and ratified the
existence of our own group. We also invented, or augmented, sound
reasons for whatever form of behaviour seemed best suited to the group.
When, eventually, for whatever number of reasons - agriculture,
improved technology, aridity, whatever - our solitary existence as a
group came to an end we invented a plethora of reasons why coalesence
was best. Thus, for example, we embellished concepts of leadership: we
extended our concepts of belonging; we widened our moral compass to
include far more than any one group. I'm not suggesting that these
events were co-ordinated or met with general approval. I'm simply
saying that they formed elements of the apparatus of the the
construction of a new age.
At each successive stage in our colonisation of the planet we came
closer to the truth - while still being far from it. There are vast
paradoxes visible here. Early humans had a profound sense of local
reality and a profound sense of the existence of each other as people
to be reckoned with. But their worldview was girded with error and
illusion and fantasy. The people who lived in the vast empires that
followed coalescence were often denied a sense of personal right; they
had to submit to gross conceptions of power: they were often swept up
in vast religions based on absurdity and false promises. And yet I hold
to my view that these later peoples had a deepèr sense of the scale of
the human enterprise.
And when eventually we found a way out of this imperial age - imperial
both in the construction of vast empires and in the formation of vast
religions ( a process not yet complete, of course) - we then created
new concepts to assist our emergence. We created unsupportable concepts
of right and nationhood, concepts that have underlaid the history of
ther last 4 centuries. These concepts, I would suggest, were based on
error and illusion - but thery came closer to an acceptance of our
fundamental autonomy as individuals and they facilitated the exercise
of our vast range of capabilities. Such a falsification was necessary,
I suggest, to counter the vast imperial concepts then in place.
And now a global society is necessary. Now we must recreate our
concepts again. But now we can no longer depend on our creativity
alone. We can no longer fool ourselves. We must finally move towards a
fundamental acceptance and recognition of our place on the planet. We
must finally see that we possess sufficient capability and potential to
create a value system based on the truth alone and no longer based, as
in the past, on some fanciful fiction or promise.
Joseph H
ralph
Joseph H <jos...@humanisation.org> writes
>
>
>And now a global society is necessary. Now we must recreate our
>concepts again. But now we can no longer depend on our creativity
>alone. We can no longer fool ourselves. We must finally move towards a
>fundamental acceptance and recognition of our place on the planet. We
>must finally see that we possess sufficient capability and potential to
>create a value system based on the truth alone and no longer based, as
>in the past, on some fanciful fiction or promise.
>
--
ralph
David V.
> In message Joseph H <jos...@humanisation.org> writes
>>
>> And now a global society is necessary. Now we must recreate
>> our concepts again. But now we can no longer depend on our
>> creativity alone. We can no longer fool ourselves. We must
>> finally move towards a fundamental acceptance and
>> recognition of our place on the planet. We must finally see
>> that we possess sufficient capability and potential to
>> create a value system based on the truth alone and no longer
>> based, as in the past, on some fanciful fiction or promise.
>>
> OK. Any suggestions?
Find Joe a new psychologist?
--
Dave
....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Joseph H
David V. wrote:
> ralph wrote:
> > In message Joseph H <jos...@humanisation.org> writes
> >>
> >> And now a global society is necessary. Now we must recreate
> >> our concepts again. But now we can no longer depend on our
> >> creativity alone. We can no longer fool ourselves. We must
> >> finally move towards a fundamental acceptance and
> >> recognition of our place on the planet. We must finally see
> >> that we possess sufficient capability and potential to
> >> create a value system based on the truth alone and no longer
> >> based, as in the past, on some fanciful fiction or promise.
> >>
> > OK. Any suggestions?
>
> Find Joe a new psychologist?
Maybe, Dave, your New Ýear's Resolution should be to actually address
what you disagree with instead of relying on the usual tired old abuse.
Funny, I know I'm going to be disappointed in this hope.
erikc
Step One: ditch religion.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
Joseph H
Yeah, a few. But let´s not just dismiss the analysis of the past. Any
deconstruction of the body of past human creation is worth more than a
glib "Any suggestions?". Either I'm saying something important or I'm
saying nothing at all. If I'm saying nothing then it's not OK. If I'm
saying something important then it's worth more than "Any
suggestions?".
After that...any suggestions? When we emerged with our range of
capabilities the task before us was quite finite: colonise the planet.
No mysteries here; nothing really difficult. In cosmic time - and scale
- our task was miniscule. The amount of "work" required to negotiate
that task was, and is, miniscule compared with the amount of work
already done by nature to bring us to this point. The creation of the
universe, the stabilisation of our portion of the universe, the
formation of our solar system, the stabilisation of earth, the
emergence of life, the evolution of life, the development of the skills
required to enable us to complete our colonisation of the planet...all
together dwarf the nature of our task.
We have not until very recently seen any of this. We have beern blinded
by our own creativity. We have created endless sources and locations of
value - divine destinies, national destinies, personal destinies,
providences of every description... To see - finally - the range of our
own capabilities provides a far more substantial source of value and
purpose than any of ther above. Humanism has sought to highlight these
capabilities - but humanism, as I know it, has not provided the
historical provenance I sought to elaborate in my previous postings in
this thread. I well understand why humanists would be cautious about
embarking on a new mythology of possibilities and destinies. All I ask
is that people examine what I say. The gifts we possess - the abilties
to organise and reorganise, to visualise and construct, to analyse and
reconstruct, to mimic and recreate - all together serve us well in our
task of colonisation. The planet is a finite zone. With our resources
we should be able to colonise it to a certain standard in a certain
time. We are close. Our impatience and our constant outrage at the
frequencies of our failures blinds us to what has been done. But until
such time as we see the totality of our achievements and the finite
nature of what remains to be done our progress will be all the more
halting.
Best wishes, sir-
>
> --
> ralph
Doug Donaghue
"erikc" <fire...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:bnktr19jsdncgehve...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:57:41 +0000, ralph <ra...@eddlewood.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>In message <1136487482.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>>Joseph H <jos...@humanisation.org> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>And now a global society is necessary. Now we must recreate our
>>>concepts again. But now we can no longer depend on our creativity
>>>alone. We can no longer fool ourselves. We must finally move towards a
>>>fundamental acceptance and recognition of our place on the planet. We
>>>must finally see that we possess sufficient capability and potential to
>>>create a value system based on the truth alone and no longer based, as
>>>in the past, on some fanciful fiction or promise.
>>>
>>OK. Any suggestions?
>
> Step One: ditch religion.
Probably not a bad idea at some level. But how to do that and leave the
spiritual dimension of the human experience unscathed?
Doug
David V.
> "erikc" <fire...@airmail.net> wrote
>
>> <ra...@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph H <jos...@humanisation.org> writes
>>>>
>>>> And now a global society is necessary. Now we must
>>>> recreate our concepts again. But now we can no longer
>>>> depend on our creativity alone. We can no longer fool
>>>> ourselves. We must finally move towards a fundamental
>>>> acceptance and recognition of our place on the planet.
>>>> We must finally see that we possess sufficient
>>>> capability and potential to create a value system based
>>>> on the truth alone and no longer based, as in the past,
>>>> on some fanciful fiction or promise.
>>>
>>> OK. Any suggestions?
>>
>> Step One: ditch religion.
>
> Probably not a bad idea at some level. But how to do that and
> leave the spiritual dimension of the human experience
> unscathed?
Why get rid of religion only to hang on to one of it's archaic
concepts? This "spirituality" bit is just an excuse to hang on
to one last bit of the past. If you get rid of the gods, get rid
of the spirits too.
Joseph H
David V. wrote:
> Doug Donaghue wrote:
> > "erikc" <fire...@airmail.net> wrote
> >
> >> <ra...@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Joseph H <jos...@humanisation.org> writes
> >>>>
> >>>> And now a global society is necessary. Now we must
> >>>> recreate our concepts again. But now we can no longer
> >>>> depend on our creativity alone. We can no longer fool
> >>>> ourselves. We must finally move towards a fundamental
> >>>> acceptance and recognition of our place on the planet.
> >>>> We must finally see that we possess sufficient
> >>>> capability and potential to create a value system based
> >>>> on the truth alone and no longer based, as in the past,
> >>>> on some fanciful fiction or promise.
> >>>
> >>> OK. Any suggestions?
> >>
> >> Step One: ditch religion.
> >
> > Probably not a bad idea at some level. But how to do that and
> > leave the spiritual dimension of the human experience
> > unscathed?
>
> Why get rid of religion only to hang on to one of it's archaic
> concepts? This "spirituality" bit is just an excuse to hang on
> to one last bit of the past. If you get rid of the gods, get rid
> of the spirits too.
Good point. I hadn´t actually equated spirituality with spirits.
I have no truck with spirits. I do, however, wish to value my / our
existence. So-called spirituality is not at issue here. I don't think I
have used the word myself - but I can't be certain of that. What is at
issue is an intense valuation of our existence, a sense that we are a
worthy species with much to offer life on the planet and the planet
itself. Actually, I haven't delved into this issue before. It's been
vague, to say the least, so I appreciate this opportunity to clarify
some issues. What is value? It's a sense that something matters. A
sense that something is worth standing up for. Why should this be the
case? Why bother? Why sacrifice one iota of self-interest on behalf of
the the species? Why not just go about one's business with no interest
whatever in what the species might be about to do? Hmmmm....
Because I want to value US. I want to value what we are. I want some
sense that we are a gifted species. Let´s face it, I'm just a LONELY
FUCKER!
You´re right, Dave. I need a psychologist. QUICKLY.
Joseph H
erikc wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:57:41 +0000, ralph <ra...@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <1136487482.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >Joseph H <jos...@humanisation.org> writes
> >>
> >>
> >>And now a global society is necessary. Now we must recreate our
> >>concepts again. But now we can no longer depend on our creativity
> >>alone. We can no longer fool ourselves. We must finally move towards a
> >>fundamental acceptance and recognition of our place on the planet. We
> >>must finally see that we possess sufficient capability and potential to
> >>create a value system based on the truth alone and no longer based, as
> >>in the past, on some fanciful fiction or promise.
> >>
> >OK. Any suggestions?
>
> Step One: ditch religion.
But Erikc, a mhic, is na he sin an t-implication that follows
everything I write. Actually, it´s not even the implication. It´s
jusr understood. Religion belongs to a defunct mindset. It´s big, I
believe, in Kansas and Limerick.
Hey, nothing wrong with Limerick that a knife wouldn't cure.
Joseph H
Unscathed? Strange usage.
Are you suggesting, Doug, that the spiritual dimension of the human
being can ONLY be served by the thing we call "religion"? What is
religion anyway but an effort to locate the truth behind experience and
an effort to impart value to that truth? If we decide - or discover -
that the truth behind experience is simply the arrival of a gifted
creature on the planet can we not conclude that value resides in / on
the planet itself, indeed that value resides in things as they are, in
the complexity and wonderment of existence itself, and that our gift
is to be able to crystalise and celebrate and evaluate the nature of
that existence. That's our real religion. Indeed, that may have been
the original focus of ALL religion - before all religion was
sequestered by the priestly caste and made into a secretive series of
rituals.
I agree with you in that we have a considerable spiritual dimension -
although I wonder just what a "spiritual dimension" means. Does it
simply mean that we have a capacity, or a longing, to impart value? If
so, I suggest that knowledge of the complexity and wonder of life and
acceptance of our potential in this area - our potential to know and
understand and transform life - is a sufficient source of value.
Thanks for posting.
Joseph H
www.humanisation.org
>
>
> Doug
Joseph H
"spiritual dimension" signify? Does it signify that there already
exists an objective spiritual reality which we are predisposed to seek?
Or does it mean that we simply seek dsperately to understand the nature
of the existence of which we are a part? Or does it mean that our
affective nature is awed by the innate tragedy of our existence - to
whit, the presence of death etc.?
I suggest the answer is some combination of the latter two. Certainly,
I have no belief whatever in any objective spiritual existence. I do
believe passionately, however, in the value and worth of the objective
physical existence, my so-called stem of existence. I believe that a
great reservoir of value lies therein. I also value our efforts to
create a good and useful life - but I think we do the existence of
which we are a part a disservice by not availing of the value and
inspiration it offers.
Joseph H
our desperate need to explain what we wished to explain? Our
intelligence demanded explanation for what we were unable to explain -
so belief was the link, the missing link, so to to speak. Belief filled
the void - and in so doing, of course, explained away the void.
But now we know ther is no void. The alternative to belief is not the
void; it's the full complex universe of reality we could never know
before.
So why hang onto absurdity? Heaven, hell and all that palaver! Is there
not some degree of collusion involved? Some longing to belong by
agreeing with what we secretly recognise to be unlikely, to say the
least?
It's time we accepted, finally accepted, the the true reservoir of
value must lie in what is true. How, after all, can enduring value lie
in what is plainly false?
But there is another difficulty. As our lives get better we ascend in
to an earthly heaven - such comforts as would be unknown to people of
former generations. Earthly heaven destroys the will to believe.
Comfort, man! But the zealots beaver away. We can only defeat the
zealots by valueing what we have.
Joseph H
creation - of institution and statute and concept and principle? Are
they - were they - not all constructions to shore up human existence
until such time as we finally knew what human existence amounted to and
finally gained optimum (which is to be confused with total) control
over that existence?
This is not, notwithstanding appearances, to discredit the past panoply
of creation. Our ingenious beliefs, our wondrous concepts, our vast
institutions, our endless loyalty and affection...all played a vital
(though not always beneficial ) role in our progress to sufficient
knowledge and optimum control.
But, in the end, such creations can, could, never gainsay the
fundamental truth of our condition: that we are a unique creature in
nature, probably in the cosmos, and that we must one day come to terms
with that fact. When this happens - and it will be soon, probably
forced upon us by global peril - all our wondrous creations of the past
will come to seem like whimsical fantasies prior to the onset of true
knowledge.
But this is a boring topic! Oh, how I long to get my teeth into
something really challenging. Like Creationism, say.
Joseph H
Usenet and Gogle Groups - remain silent while I advance such theories?
Just to summarize: what I am saying is that our importance as a species
lies in the fact that we are the mind of matter; that we represent, or
embody, or possess, that configuration of matter that is capable of
awareness of the nature of existence to date and,as such, is capable of
exercising an influence on existence to come. What I am also saying is
that such a capability throws into relief all our many and wonderful
efforts to explain and control the past. These were the expressions of
a creature not in full possession of the facts.
Such a view, I would suggest, has vast impilications for the entire
panoply of human belief and creation. But silence from the savvy
denizens of the Usenet World....!
So...am I so very wrong that they won't even deign to contribute or
express an opinion? Or are they so much a part of the flawed and
blinkered world of the past that they cannot see, or even conceive, of
the liberation that I offer?
wbarwell
> And why is it that the most advanced public fora on this planet -
> Usenet and Gogle Groups - remain silent while I advance such theories?
Smart people killfile ranting kooks.
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with
a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I
willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better
myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
-- George W. Bush - [Houston Chronicle, 5/8/94]
Cheerful Charlie
Joseph H
wbarwell wrote:
> Joseph H wrote:
>
> > And why is it that the most advanced public fora on this planet -
> > Usenet and Gogle Groups - remain silent while I advance such theories?
>
>
> Smart people killfile ranting kooks.
Maybe.
I see you write a lot on Scientology. Are you putting me in a similar
category? Kooks with theories etc....? Good stuff.
My views are easier to understand than L.Ron's. No mystification here;
in fact the opposite - demystification. A creature finally evolves with
the capacity to re-organise and to understand. Every effort at both is
invested with huge significance. The pressure on the individual to
submit to the prevailing forms is considerable. For some thousands of
years this creature struggles to come to grips with a recurring
enlargement of society and a continuing increase in knowledge. Every
alteration in both is attended with great trauma. Eventually the globe
is encased in vast empires of rule and thought. Some few hundred years
ago liberation from this paralysis becomes possible. But liberation
needs its own ideology too. A monolith is not defeated by truth alone.
We counter a myth with a myth - the only difference being that our most
recent myths are more egalitarian and more life-enhancing. So now most
of us have our freedoms - which is only right and proper. And most of
us use our freedoms very wisely. Life is vastly improved for the vas
majority. But we have no view of the human being. The removal of
erroneous concepts - providence, salvation etc - has left no concepts
at all. The outcome can be a value-vacuum - as depicted, for example,
the novels of Michel Houellebecq, Atomised etc.
The solution to this dilemna is not - in my opinion - to be found in
recourse to new modes of belief, in untapped or arcane sources of
belief etc. There are none. It is to be found in, first of all,
accepting and acknowledging that all past modes of belief have been no
more than various forms and expressions of human creativity and,
secondly, in realising and accepting that our uniqueness in the cosmos
and our inherent capabiities are sufficient sources of value to take us
into the future.
You may counter that abiding American values - such as those you might
feel are being abused by your friend Hubba - are more than enough to go
on with. I would suggest that abiding, or putative, American values -
freedom, justice etc - should be the fundamentals of human existence
anyway. Why should we entrust especial value to that which we should
naturally possess? Such a value-system belongs to an age when these
fundamentals were denied us. Now that most of us have them we have to
move on.
Maybe you apply your smart intelligence to the above? Or is it easier
to attack dianetics?
Joseph H
Joseph H
A creature evolves, complex, clever...spreads, colonises,
learns..numbers increase,federate, amalgamate...local beliefs and
cultures...some failure or some sudden unsustainable increase or,
rarely, some ambitious leader...rule of some sort, compulsion,
incorporation, individual voice restricted....new beliefs appealing to
many....Europe...Rome gone...Celts etc...Church halts
amalgamation...some individuality possible...but centuries...then
Renaissance, Black Death, reformation, travel, commerce..all break up
the stasis...individualism at last...rights
etc...industry..colojialism...explosion of capacity...population
bomb...war etc..more freedoms...problems of the age...our age: wealth v
poverty; rights v duty, inequality etc etc
What's required? Humanism, yes: we must see things as they are. But
it's only part of the picture. We must see the entire process, the Full
Story. We must see all the phases of our colonisation of the planet; we
must see that the trend is inexorably towards a global society; we must
see that such a society must have a firm sense of where we are going as
a species; we must see beyond the inevitable crises and glitches to the
underlying trend. Buit the success and pace of this trend depends on
our possessing a vision of human capability.
Legion
"Joseph H" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
news:1136656231.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sorry Joseph, but I must disagree, you don't need a psychologist!!
I agree wholeheartedly with you last statement. We do have a terrible time
trying to cling to the value of us as a species, we have generally lost any
sense of awe in our own achievements and abilities. You are right that seen
against the backdrop of evolution our concious developement is tiny, but on
it's own scale we have achieved and have emerged to be capable of, a great
deal.
We lack pride in our condition. Of course there are things to be ashamed of,
things that our naturally evolved morality (not religiously or socially
imposed) abhors. But these pale in comparison to the psitives we have
achieved.
One of Humanities greatest abilities is the skill of breaking down a problem
in to managable issues and solving them before building up a bigger solution
from these small parts. This skilled coupled with an almost limitless
intellectual patience has enabled us to advance technilogically at an
exponential rate in recent times.
The future depends on a greater realisationof our own value.
--
Legion
-------
"Each man is a spark in the darkness,
by the time he is noticed he is gone.
A faded retinal after-image,
obscured by newer brighter lights". - Liber Humanus
Legion
My Feeling has always been that Religion is indeed an interim measure for
the explanation of "That which cannot be explained" i.e. that which Science
has not yet developed far enough to really put a solid 'proof' to.
The reason for the tenacity of the creationism myth is due to the lack of a
really solid theory of the commencement of the universe. As long as science
remains without a solid 'proof' of what kicked of the existence of the
Universe then the God theory will remain in one form or another. Even
Stephen Hawking once stated that he could not see a better reason for the
sudden springing into being of the Universe than God.
One day the conditions of the pre-universe state will be know (or at least
universally accepted) and the Creation by God will go the way of the flat
earth theory and the idea that the sun is dragged across the sky in a golden
chariot.
We are still growing and maturing and although we have reached a critical
phase in our development as a species. The process continues.
Legion
No, the problem is that you are right and quite articulate.
Although you would normally see a few flame trolls banging on about religion
and science being two sides of the same coin abput now...............
Odd
Legion
"wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11sgmq7...@corp.supernews.com...
> Joseph H wrote:
>
> > And why is it that the most advanced public fora on this planet -
> > Usenet and Gogle Groups - remain silent while I advance such theories?
>
>
> Smart people killfile ranting kooks.
>
>
Struggling with the concepts are we?
Never mind, maybe when you have finished big school............
Joseph H
Did I say that?
but on
> it's own scale we have achieved and have emerged to be capable of, a great
> deal.
>
> We lack pride in our condition. Of course there are things to be ashamed of,
> things that our naturally evolved morality (not religiously or socially
> imposed) abhors.
Good point about the naturally-evolved morality. Now, what is that? How
did it evolve? It's shown as shame, isn't it? Why do we feel shame?
Other animals show shame as well - dogs, for example. Why? Why should
we be ashamed? Is there an inherent good, or wish for good? I'm asking.
I don't know. I believe life is inherently moral: we look after our
young, we don't (generally) gratuitously destroy others. I wonder if
life could have survived if it were inherently evil or capricious? Life
is so vulnerable that it requires care.I wonder if shame is a
manifestation or offshoot of care.
But these pale in comparison to the psitives we have
> achieved.
>
> One of Humanities greatest abilities is the skill of breaking down a problem
> in to managable issues and solving them before building up a bigger solution
> from these small parts. This skilled coupled with an almost limitless
> intellectual patience has enabled us to advance technilogically at an
> exponential rate in recent times.
>
> The future depends on a greater realisationof our own value.
Excellent.
>
>
> --
> Legion
> -------
> "Each man is a spark in the darkness,
> by the time he is noticed he is gone.
> A faded retinal after-image,
> obscured by newer brighter lights". - Liber Humanus
Liber Humanus? What's that?
Joseph H
Agree.
>
> The reason for the tenacity of the creationism myth is due to the lack of a
> really solid theory of the commencement of the universe. As long as science
> remains without a solid 'proof' of what kicked of the existence of the
> Universe then the God theory will remain in one form or another. Even
> Stephen Hawking once stated that he could not see a better reason for the
> sudden springing into being of the Universe than God.
>
> One day the conditions of the pre-universe state will be know (or at least
> universally accepted) and the Creation by God will go the way of the flat
> earth theory and the idea that the sun is dragged across the sky in a golden
> chariot.
Not so sure of that. The attraction, in many guises, of religious
explanations will long remain. But it's proably a gradual process
towards acceptance and valuation of what actually happened.
>
> We are still growing and maturing and although we have reached a critical
> phase in our development as a species. The process continues.
Are we growing as a species or do we remain fundamentally unaltered as
a species? Certainly our knowledge is growing. But can we be sure that
our increased knowledge will result in more enlightened behaviour?
That's why i make such a case for an enhanced valuation of what we
know.
Legion
Agreed, but eventually it wil happen. indeed old habits and exhausted memes
die hard but they do die.
> >
> > We are still growing and maturing and although we have reached a
critical
> > phase in our development as a species. The process continues.
>
> Are we growing as a species or do we remain fundamentally unaltered as
> a species? Certainly our knowledge is growing. But can we be sure that
> our increased knowledge will result in more enlightened behaviour?
> That's why i make such a case for an enhanced valuation of what we
> know.
I think it impossible for our knowledge to grow without our behaviour being
altered.
Joseph H
Yeah, but what follows? There's no assurance that the end of religion
will bring some renewed affirmation of life. There are so many
allurements out there - wealth, porn, gambling, leisure...There seems
to be an ongoing tussle between knowledge and pleasure. That's why I
make such a case for Humanisation as a new avenue of value.
>
> > >
> > > We are still growing and maturing and although we have reached a
> critical
> > > phase in our development as a species. The process continues.
> >
> > Are we growing as a species or do we remain fundamentally unaltered as
> > a species? Certainly our knowledge is growing. But can we be sure that
> > our increased knowledge will result in more enlightened behaviour?
> > That's why i make such a case for an enhanced valuation of what we
> > know.
>
> I think it impossible for our knowledge to grow without our behaviour being
> altered.
Altered, maybe - but how altered? If the only function of knowledge is
to remove or discredit a prior source of value - religion - then
behaviour will disimprove.A new source of value must be offered, I
think.
Legion
<<Snipped for ease of scrolling>>
> >
> > Agreed, but eventually it wil happen. indeed old habits and exhausted
memes
> > die hard but they do die.
> > > Not
> >
>
> Yeah, but what follows? There's no assurance that the end of religion
> will bring some renewed affirmation of life. There are so many
> allurements out there - wealth, porn, gambling, leisure...There seems
> to be an ongoing tussle between knowledge and pleasure.
Why is there a tussle, why must knowledge and pleasure be mutually
exclusive?
What I am talking about is a removal of the human intellectual dependance on
fabricated 'religious' explanations of the Universe and it's workings.
The end of religion will not I'm sure bring a renewed affirmation of life,
but it will herald a greater intellectual honesty among Humans. It is
another step in the maturation of Humanity as a species.
That's why I
> make such a case for Humanisation as a new avenue of value.
>
> > > > We are still growing and maturing and although we have reached a
> > critical
> > > > phase in our development as a species. The process continues.
> > >
> > > Are we growing as a species or do we remain fundamentally unaltered as
> > > a species? Certainly our knowledge is growing. But can we be sure that
> > > our increased knowledge will result in more enlightened behaviour?
> > > That's why i make such a case for an enhanced valuation of what we
> > > know.
> >
> > I think it impossible for our knowledge to grow without our behaviour
being
> > altered.
> Altered, maybe - but how altered? If the only function of knowledge is
> to remove or discredit a prior source of value - religion - then
> behaviour will disimprove.A new source of value must be offered, I
> think.
> >
I think there is a general assumption that as we increase knowledge and
become more enlightened, we generally become more positive towards each
other. Education tends to breed open-minded individuals who are less likely
to have hostile felings towards his fellow Humans.
It is your concept of 'value' that I am struggling with. Religion only has
value as an alternatve description of how the universe came to be and how it
works. It does not seem to be intrinsically connected to the 'behaviour'
(good or bad) of Humanity.
I'd be grateful if you would define what you mean by 'value' in this context
and how Humanisation offers a new source.
All the best
Joseph H
Legion wrote:
> "Joseph H" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
> news:1138208586.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <<Snipped for ease of scrolling>>
>
>
> > >
> > > Agreed, but eventually it wil happen. indeed old habits and exhausted
> memes
> > > die hard but they do die.
> > > > Not
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, but what follows? There's no assurance that the end of religion
> > will bring some renewed affirmation of life. There are so many
> > allurements out there - wealth, porn, gambling, leisure...There seems
> > to be an ongoing tussle between knowledge and pleasure.
>
> Why is there a tussle, why must knowledge and pleasure be mutually
> exclusive?
They need not be. But there is a huge industry out there very skilled
at inducing people to buy...whatever. I have nothing against pleasure.
I spend a lot of my time seeking as much pleasure as I can deal with.
But...we are finite and we are susceptible. The range of inducements on
offer can make the trivial more gratifying than the even moderately
serious. I think democracies - and educators - worldwide are srugggling
with this kind of indifferent.
Religion may have more value than that. It may inculcate a sound
morality and it may serve as a force for social cohesion. It may also
give people a sense of the worth of things and a sense of the worth of
a certain kind of behaviour. What I'm talking about, I suppose, is a
certain consciousness - not so much belief that certain things happen
to be true (though this can be good too) but belief that a certain kind
of life is an appropriate kind of life. I'm not saying this doesn't
exist today. Many Greens, and others, would certainly have such a
feeling. But I don't see the same general acceptance of it that I saw
as a kid.
>
> I'd be grateful if you would define what you mean by 'value' in this context
> and how Humanisation offers a new source.
By "value" I mean a sense of the worth of human existence; a
recognition of our capabilities; an acknowledgement, by all means, of
our limitations and an acceptance that these limitations will always
exist - but a belief that a perusal of our history shows that we can,
and will eventually, override those limitations and create an
intelligent, caring and knowing society.
Humanisation is essentially a concept. It incorporates both an
expectation and an age, or society, appropriate to that expectation.
The expectation arises from the belief that we as a creature with a
particular range of capabilties, all well attested, living on a finite
planet, now finally well-measured, will eventually colonise that planet
in a manner commensurate with those abilities. It is almost - or maybe
simply "is" - a logical working out of an inherent possibility.
The society in question - "Humanisation", as such - would be guided by
principles and precepts and by capabilities pursuent on our acquiring
sufficient knowledge of the conditions of our existence - cosmological,
chemical and historical - to (a) agree on, or just accept, the nature
of our place in the universe; (b) agree that the significance and
uniqueness of such a place far overrides whatever accidental
associations and affinities that accrued to us during our time on the
planet - while still treasuring these affinities in a certain manner
(much as Italian-Americans, say, treasure the customs and memories of
their old country); (c) marshall the forces of chemistry and physics to
secure the continuity of life and (d) establish an intelligent and
appropriate society on earth.
Legion
>
> Legion wrote:
> > "Joseph H" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
> > news:1138208586.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > <<Snipped for ease of scrolling>>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, but eventually it wil happen. indeed old habits and
exhausted
> > memes
> > > > die hard but they do die.
> > > > > Not
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, but what follows? There's no assurance that the end of religion
> > > will bring some renewed affirmation of life. There are so many
> > > allurements out there - wealth, porn, gambling, leisure...There seems
> > > to be an ongoing tussle between knowledge and pleasure.
> >
> > Why is there a tussle, why must knowledge and pleasure be mutually
> > exclusive?
>
> They need not be. But there is a huge industry out there very skilled
> at inducing people to buy...whatever. I have nothing against pleasure.
> I spend a lot of my time seeking as much pleasure as I can deal with.
> But...we are finite and we are susceptible.
Good to hear!!
The range of inducements on
> offer can make the trivial more gratifying than the even moderately
> serious.
Now this I do agree with. You have hit the nail on there head there I think.
It is possible that it is more gratifying because it is trivial and
therefore consequenceless.
I think democracies - and educators - worldwide are srugggling
> with this kind of indifferent.
I think you are right. but what can be done to increase inerest in that
which matters i.e. the non-trivial.
People shy away from this because to be involved means risk, risk of seeing
or hearing something truly awful, the risk of putting oneself on display, of
stepping out of line and drawing unwelcome attention.
How can this attitude be changed though??
I think if we are defining religion in the generic sense of a specific set
of principles, then you are on the money.
The challenge here is finding the 'right' principles and making them
acceptable to all. My own belief is that this list of solid 'rules' is
actually very small. As most moral judgements have to be made by each person
'on the fly' depending on the specific set of circumstances they find
themsekves in.
I think another problem is that the term 'Religion' has become almost
synonymous with the Institutional religions of the past. These are faith
systems that have been seen to be unable to bear scrutiny in recent times.
It means that we almost have to define what we mean by 'Religion' for each
new person we talk to.
It is difficult to seperate the concept from the known institutions. It's
like an inverse example of everyone calling Vacuum Cleaner's 'Hoovers'. We
say 'Religion' people make an instant assumption that we mean Theist Faith.
I am completely sold on the underlying concept but what concerns me is the
implementation. Is this a principle or concept you feel is essentially an
inevitable 'next step' (your use of the word 'expectation' seems to imply
not) or does it require a specific set of actions to bring to fruition the
points outlined above?
BTW is the remainder of your essay available??
Joseph H
Yeah, I don't envisage a return to the complete vision of life common
in my youth - a vision still common, I imagine, in Islamic society
where the entire consciousness is given over to a particular view of
existence. I think freedom and the expression of the self has killed
that forever. What I foresee - and I admit that I hadn't given the
matter very much thought before your questions arose - is a gradual
increase in knowledge and a gradual accommodation of society to that
knowledge - so that in time society is based more and more on
principles compliant with the facts of our existence and, I hope,
compliant with a potential finally taken for granted. I don't foresee
this turning us all away from the trivial - but I hope it enables us to
discern a more enduring reality behind the trivial.
Yeah, I'd like to move away from the word religion in the medium term.
I use it a lot, not becuase I want to found or institute a new religion
- I don't! - but because it describes a mode of dedication or belief I
find attractive. I don't for a second suppose that others will be as
committed to such a mode as I am, but that's no problem. As long as
people take on board the consciousness and the awareness that I propose
I will be more than happy. Also, I don't have any ceremonies or rituals
to offer. I think Compte or St.Simon tried that - rituals to value
humanity etc. I think that if the consciousness I propose took hold
eventually some form of expression, or ritual, would emerge - but I
would prefer that it evolved organically. But that's a long way away.
Knowledge and accptance is what matters now.
Joseph H
Incidentally, good friend(s), there is a good discoussion on this and
related matters going down in talk.philosophy.humanism at the mo.
Humanism 2006, I think it's called.
> >
Legion
Again, I concur. Although my feeling is that this is a natural process and
will happen "automatically" anyway. I feel that as long as Humans seek to
understand the scientific explanations for the phenomena we see around us
then there will be a natural march towards this kind of enlightenment and to
the realisation of our potential.
I also think there is potential for this process to receive a boost when
certain milestones are reached. Be they scientific discoveries such as the
discovery of DNA or Philosophical discoveries such as your concept of
Humanisation. I do not imagin I am in a position to propose that
humanisation is as 'big' a concept as the discovery of DNA, but for my own
part I it has certainly piqued my interest.
I have mentioned this to you elsewhere so I will not belabour the point, but
this is why I feel it is important to ensure the knowledge of such things
reaches as many of the species as possible. It might enable us to gain a bit
of ground that would take much longer if the process is left to it's own
devices.
Very well put
I don't for a second suppose that others will be as
> committed to such a mode as I am, but that's no problem. As long as
> people take on board the consciousness and the awareness that I propose
> I will be more than happy. Also, I don't have any ceremonies or rituals
> to offer. I think Compte or St.Simon tried that - rituals to value
> humanity etc. I think that if the consciousness I propose took hold
> eventually some form of expression, or ritual, would emerge - but I
> would prefer that it evolved organically. But that's a long way away.
> Knowledge and accptance is what matters now.
I agree. I think it would emerge eventually. But once again you are dead
right. It must evolve by itself. If you have to create rituals to engage
people in your concept you have already strayed of the path. This is
something that cannot be forced. In doing so you risk destroying the
'message'.
But that is not to say that disseminating the concept is innappropriate. I
think communication with those who see genuine value and who are open to the
potential of your idea is a good way of raising the conciousness of it.
Joseph H
deliberate acts. Perhaps, these are just natural too. I see what I
offer as a deliberate act - an act of seeking to make people understand
the human achievement to date. People generally view humanity as a
failed species - the atrocities, the corrup[tion, the failures etc. But
from the vantage point of evolution or from the magnitude of the task
in hand - colonising a planet with ever-shifting parameters as
knowledge and technology and society and consciousness endlessly change
- I think we have done quite well.
>
> I also think there is potential for this process to receive a boost when
> certain milestones are reached. Be they scientific discoveries such as the
> discovery of DNA or Philosophical discoveries such as your concept of
> Humanisation. I do not imagin I am in a position to propose that
> humanisation is as 'big' a concept as the discovery of DNA, but for my own
> part I it has certainly piqued my interest.
>
> I have mentioned this to you elsewhere so I will not belabour the point, but
> this is why I feel it is important to ensure the knowledge of such things
> reaches as many of the species as possible. It might enable us to gain a bit
> of ground that would take much longer if the process is left to it's own
> devices.
>
Agree.
Legion
>snipped for ease of scrolling<<
I think we have played a blinder!!
Given the adversity........and it *is* a shame that our history is looked on
so negatively, is this a feature of our current age though?
ralph
writes
>
>Why get rid of religion only to hang on to one of it's archaic
>concepts? This "spirituality" bit is just an excuse to hang on
>to one last bit of the past. If you get rid of the gods, get rid
>of the spirits too.
David, I hate the term spirituality, but find it difficult to do
without.
I use it to refer to that which separates us from the rest of the animal
kingdom, what might be called aesthetic appreciation, but that's a
mouthful. We are moved, sometimes to tears, by works of art, music,
natural beauty, great architecture ...
Do you have a better way of describing this phenomenon?
--
ralph
David V.
> David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>> Why get rid of religion only to hang on to one of it's
>> archaic concepts? This "spirituality" bit is just an excuse
>> to hang on to one last bit of the past. If you get rid of
>> the gods, get rid of the spirits too.
>
>
> David, I hate the term spirituality, but find it difficult to
> do without.
I don't see how. I get along just fine without it. There are
probably a hundred words you could use in it's place.
> I use it to refer to that which separates us from the rest of
> the animal kingdom, what might be called aesthetic
> appreciation, but that's a mouthful. We are moved, sometimes
> to tears, by works of art, music, natural beauty, great
> architecture ...
Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life, art,
music, and such?
> Do you have a better way of describing this phenomenon?
Let's see.... with some help from dictionary.com:
abstract, august, divine, dynamite, elevated, eminent, evil,
exalted, fab,
far out, fat, glorious, gorgeous, grand, greatest, heavenly,
heavy, high, holy, ideal, imposing, lofty, magnificent, majestic,
noble, outrageous, proud, resplendent, sacred, solid gold,
splendiferous, splendorous, stately, super, superb, the most, too
much, transcendent, transcendental, zero cool
It's also the concept that humans need to be raised to a "higher
plane" than our fellow animals that I have a problem with.
--
Dave
The trouble with the world is not that people know too little,
but that they know so many things that ain't so. Mark Twain.
Joseph H
Well, I think "blinder" is overstating it. Too often we were blind.
Joseph H
Well, hallo David! Welcome to my pleasure-dome!
I have no idea whether other animals don't similarly experience "highs"
as we do. I hope they do. I just wish we valued our highs. I wish we
valued our capacity to appreciate the complexity and wonderment of
existence. And I wish that when occasionally we do appreciate that
capacity we wouldn't forget it five minutes later when something less
appealing happens. That capacity is where we're at.
>
> --
> Dave
>
> The trouble with the world is not that people know too little,
> but that they know so many things that ain't so. Mark Twain.
Wow, I'm impressed by that heavy-handed nugget of wisdom.
ralph
writes
>Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life, art,
>music, and such?
>
It's not just an assumption, but observation and reporting. I have never
seen another animal species appearing to appreciate art or architecture,
or heard of anyone else doing so.
Music is a slightly different issue, in that domestic animals do react
favourably to some music.
But the animal distinction is not the important part. The important part
is that we have aesthetic appreciation built in, and I need a term to
describe this.
>> Do you have a better way of describing this phenomenon?
>
>Let's see.... with some help from dictionary.com:
>
>abstract, august, divine, dynamite, elevated, eminent, evil,
>exalted, fab,
>far out, fat, glorious, gorgeous, grand, greatest, heavenly,
>heavy, high, holy, ideal, imposing, lofty, magnificent, majestic,
>noble, outrageous, proud, resplendent, sacred, solid gold,
>splendiferous, splendorous, stately, super, superb, the most, too
>much, transcendent, transcendental, zero cool
>
Well, thank you for those suggestions. Many would, I think, be
unacceptable to most humanists, given their religious connotations. I do
not see one which I would find more useful that spirituality.
>It's also the concept that humans need to be raised to a "higher
>plane" than our fellow animals that I have a problem with.
>
I wouldn't say that we "need" to be raised to a higher plane, rather
that we see life as comprising more than exists in the jungle.
Do you have a problem with that concept?
--
ralph
suz...@hwcn.org
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:57:41 +0000, ralph <ra...@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <1136487482.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >Joseph H <jos...@humanisation.org> writes
> >>
> >>
> >>And now a global society is necessary. Now we must recreate our
> >>concepts again. But now we can no longer depend on our creativity
> >>alone. We can no longer fool ourselves. We must finally move towards a
> >>fundamental acceptance and recognition of our place on the planet. We
> >>must finally see that we possess sufficient capability and potential to
> >>create a value system based on the truth alone and no longer based, as
> >>in the past, on some fanciful fiction or promise.
> >>
> >OK. Any suggestions?
>
> Step One: ditch religion.
>
>
percieve it is subjective then who's to decide which truth is more
truth then the other truth?
And even if we find a concensus of whose truth is more true, wouldn't
we actually abondoned the truth for order. That means we are at
begining with value system based on
fiction...aghrr@%$&*^ How about we abandon value system instead?
Regards,
Suzana
Joseph H
suz...@hwcn.org wrote:
> erikc wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:57:41 +0000, ralph <ra...@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >In message <1136487482.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > >Joseph H <jos...@humanisation.org> writes
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>And now a global society is necessary. Now we must recreate our
> > >>concepts again. But now we can no longer depend on our creativity
> > >>alone. We can no longer fool ourselves. We must finally move towards a
> > >>fundamental acceptance and recognition of our place on the planet. We
> > >>must finally see that we possess sufficient capability and potential to
> > >>create a value system based on the truth alone and no longer based, as
> > >>in the past, on some fanciful fiction or promise.
> > >>
> > >OK. Any suggestions?
> >
> > Step One: ditch religion.
> >
> >
> > ...'value system based on truth' ...What is the truth? And if truth as I
> percieve it is subjective then who's to decide which truth is more
> truth then the other truth?
and is so-and-so many years old? It is not. It may not be known
precisely - but that does not mean it's subjective. There's a rush for
subjectivity every time we encounter a doubt.
> And even if we find a concensus of whose truth is more true, wouldn't
> we actually abondoned the truth for order.
Clearly, I'm dense. Just what does that mean?
That means we are at
> begining with value system based on
> fiction...aghrr@%$&*^
Wha? No And no again.
How about we abandon value system instead?
Radical and drastic, don't you think? Because we don't know everything
down the finest detail we drop everything. Let's build, instead, on
what we do know.
> Regards,
> Suzana
Ben Goren
> David V. wrote:
>
>> Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life, art,
>> music, and such?
>
> It's not just an assumption, but observation and reporting. I
> have never seen another animal species appearing to appreciate
> art or architecture, or heard of anyone else doing so.
Many elephants and apes are respected (abstract) painters. Every
one that paints will emphatically and enthusiastically request
brushes, paint, and canvas; and every one of them will get
upset if people try to take the canvas away before they're
finished. They make specific decisions of color, brush size, etc.
All this is well documented. It shouldn't take much in the way of
searching to find out as much as you like. My parents even have a
coffee mug that features a replica of one of Ruby's paintings....
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
David V.
> David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>> Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life, art,
>> music, and such?
>>
> It's not just an assumption, but observation and reporting. I
> have never seen another animal species appearing to appreciate
> art or architecture, or heard of anyone else doing so.
So, because YOU have not heard of it, it must not exist?
> Music is a slightly different issue, in that domestic animals
> do react favourably to some music.
>
> But the animal distinction is not the important part. The
> important part is that we have aesthetic appreciation built
> in, and I need a term to describe this.
Then the animal distinction IS the important part. You feel a
need to separate yourself from the rest of the animal life on
this planet. I don't. Why do you feel the need to use a word with
so much religious baggage? I'm sure that if you tried you could
come up with a different word..... that is.... if you wanted to.
>>> Do you have a better way of describing this phenomenon?
>>
>>
>> Let's see.... with some help from dictionary.com:
>>
>> abstract, august, divine, dynamite, elevated, eminent, evil,
>> exalted, fab, far out, fat, glorious, gorgeous, grand,
>> greatest, heavenly, heavy, high, holy, ideal, imposing,
>> lofty, magnificent, majestic, noble, outrageous, proud,
>> resplendent, sacred, solid gold, splendiferous, splendorous,
>> stately, super, superb, the most, too much, transcendent,
>> transcendental, zero cool
>>
> Well, thank you for those suggestions. Many would, I think, be
> unacceptable to most humanists, given their religious
> connotations. I do not see one which I would find more useful
> that spirituality.
'Spiritual' has far more religious connotations than any in that
list..... except maybe sacred, transcendent and such.
>> It's also the concept that humans need to be raised to a
>> "higher plane" than our fellow animals that I have a problem
>> with.
>>
> I wouldn't say that we "need" to be raised to a higher plane,
> rather that we see life as comprising more than exists in the
> jungle.
>
> Do you have a problem with that concept?
Yes. It's an outdated concept. We are animals; no better, no
worse, than any other animal.
suz...@hwcn.org
> suz...@hwcn.org wrote:
> > erikc wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:57:41 +0000, ralph <ra...@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In message <1136487482.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >Joseph H <jos...@humanisation.org> writes
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>And now a global society is necessary. Now we must recreate our
> > > >>concepts again. But now we can no longer depend on our creativity
> > > >>alone. We can no longer fool ourselves. We must finally move towards a
> > > >>fundamental acceptance and recognition of our place on the planet. We
> > > >>must finally see that we possess sufficient capability and potential to
> > > >>create a value system based on the truth alone and no longer based, as
> > > >>in the past, on some fanciful fiction or promise.
> > > >>
> > > >OK. Any suggestions?
> > >
> > > Step One: ditch religion.
> > >
> > >
> > > ...'value system based on truth' ...What is the truth? And if truth as I
> > percieve it is subjective then who's to decide which truth is more
> > truth then the other truth?
> So..is it subjective that the universe began for such-and-such a reason
> and is so-and-so many years old? It is not. It may not be known
> precisely - but that does not mean it's subjective. There's a rush for
> subjectivity every time we encounter a doubt.
> > And even if we find a concensus of whose truth is more true, wouldn't
> > we actually abondoned the truth for order.
>
> Clearly, I'm dense. Just what does that mean?
there are many of us on planet this means we have now millions of
subjective truths. Since we can't all be right nor we can be all wrong
we would have to find the system in order to find unifying truth we all
agree on to be our value system. But since chosing unifying system is
arbitrary and has little to do with truth and all to do with making
sense of all perceptions by including some and excluding some less
desirable we actually have to sacrifise some perceptions to make sense
and order for new value system.
> That means we are at
> > begining with value system based on
> > fiction...aghrr@%$&*^
> Wha? No And no again.
> How about we abandon value system instead?
>
> Radical and drastic, don't you think? Because we don't know everything
> down the finest detail we drop everything. Let's build, instead, on
> what we do know.
>
> I only tried to point out that we can not come up with value system
that is based on truth. Mostly because values are intertwined with
culture and
as such very versitile and subjective. For example, kissing a hand of
elder would be
percieved here as perhaps kissing up to a person or treating that
person
better then he/she deserves but in some other countries it is common
act
of showing respect for elderly ie your grandparentsor
greatgrandparents. Also, I think
you would have problem in finding concensus on what people see as
values. Some culture see respecting elderly
as a value, some don't. Also as I said before, values and truth
changes, what is true today may not be so in ten years so it's hard to
have a system that will not eventually fail.But may be you have an idea
how to overcome this obstacles
in that case please share.
Please forgive me for my overcomplicated and confusing entry prior to
that.
Legion
<suz...@hwcn.org> wrote in message
news:1138494833.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Objective truth, ubjective truth and value are not necessarily
interconnected concepts.
Objective truth is just that, objective. it is independant of interpretive
perception.
Religion is a good example of subjective truth which gives rise to specific
value systems. They are not in the same class as Objective truth.
Objective truth is that which is strengthened by continuous supportive
evidence. Subjective truth requires no such thing.
Value based on subjective truth will always be flawed. Value based on
objective thruth (that is observable, measurable and continuously reinforced
truth) Is as solid a truth as you can get.
Perception *is* part of theHuman condition but it is too shaky to be relied
upon for a value system.
> > That means we are at
> > > begining with value system based on
> > > fiction...aghrr@%$&*^
> > Wha? No And no again.
> > Yes. Because values and truth change as time goes by and as new
generations arrive.
Objective truth changes little, it is as robust as can be seen in a complex
Universe, subjective truth changes according to mood....
This is the main problem I think when creating a value system. The system
remains the same but values and truth change and then oneday you realise
that our value system is obsolite and has little to do with truth. No?
Agreed, value systems based on Subjective truth will always be weak and
unreliable. The shelf-life is *very* short.
> > How about we abandon value system instead?
> >
> > Radical and drastic, don't you think? Because we don't know everything
> > down the finest detail we drop everything. Let's build, instead, on
> > what we do know.
> >
> > Hmmm...may be you misunderstood me. I din't say we should drop
everything only value system based on truth.
What else is a value system based on than 'perceived' truth??
> > I only tried to point out that we can not come up with value system
> that is based on truth. Mostly because values are intertwined with
> culture and
> as such very versitile and subjective. For example, kissing a hand of
> elder would be
> percieved here as perhaps kissing up to a person or treating that
> person
> better then he/she deserves but in some other countries it is common
> act
> of showing respect for elderly ie your grandparentsor
> greatgrandparents. Also, I think
> you would have problem in finding concensus on what people see as
> values. Some culture see respecting elderly
> as a value, some don't. Also as I said before, values and truth
> changes, what is true today may not be so in ten years so it's hard to
> have a system that will not eventually fail.But may be you have an idea
> how to overcome this obstacles
> in that case please share.
> Please forgive me for my overcomplicated and confusing entry prior to
> that.
I think there is a sharp distinction to be made between the two type of
truth. Everything you have stated above holds for Subjective truth. No
argument there......
As for Objective (Scientific) truth, I think that is a different story...
Legion
"Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:8ucta3-...@reiche.trumpetpower.com...
> ralph wrote:
>
> > David V. wrote:
> >
> >> Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life, art,
> >> music, and such?
> >
> > It's not just an assumption, but observation and reporting. I
> > have never seen another animal species appearing to appreciate
> > art or architecture, or heard of anyone else doing so.
>
> Many elephants and apes are respected (abstract) painters. Every
> one that paints will emphatically and enthusiastically request
> brushes, paint, and canvas; and every one of them will get
> upset if people try to take the canvas away before they're
> finished. They make specific decisions of color, brush size, etc.
>
all true but unfortunately this does not prove that these animals appreciate
what they are doing as art. It is more likely that it is just a pleasurable
sensory excercise for them. Reinforced by the reactions of the Humans around
them.
The very fact that their 'art' is classed as abstract ( a word which here
means unrecognisable as something figurative) suggest that it is simply
animals waving a stick around.
Now if they painted a recognisable figurative work, that would be another
kettle of fish entirely.......
Legion
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0oGdnS-0Psx...@sti.net...
> ralph wrote:
> > David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >> Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life, art,
> >> music, and such?
> >>
> > It's not just an assumption, but observation and reporting. I
> > have never seen another animal species appearing to appreciate
> > art or architecture, or heard of anyone else doing so.
>
> So, because YOU have not heard of it, it must not exist?
The problem here is to define how you tell when someone appreciates
something as opposed to simply being around when it happens.
How can you prove that you appreciate art or music Dave??
>
> > Music is a slightly different issue, in that domestic animals
> > do react favourably to some music.
What is classed as a favourable reaction??
--
Legion
-------
"Each man is a spark in the darkness,
by the time he is noticed he is gone.
A faded retinal after-image,
obscured by newer brighter lights". - Liber Humanus
.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> ralph wrote:
>>
>>> David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>> Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life,
>>>> art, music, and such?
>>>
>>> It's not just an assumption, but observation and
>>> reporting. I have never seen another animal species
>>> appearing to appreciate art or architecture, or heard of
>>> anyone else doing so.
>>
>> So, because YOU have not heard of it, it must not exist?
>
> The problem here is to define how you tell when someone
> appreciates something as opposed to simply being around when
> it happens.
>
> How can you prove that you appreciate art or music Dave??
The thing that needs proving here is your archaic concept that we
MUST be separated from other animals.
>>> Music is a slightly different issue, in that domestic
>>> animals do react favourably to some music.
>
> What is classed as a favourable reaction??
Derailing?
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> ralph wrote:
>>> David V. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life, art,
>>>> music, and such?
>>>
>>> It's not just an assumption, but observation and reporting. I
>>> have never seen another animal species appearing to appreciate
>>> art or architecture, or heard of anyone else doing so.
>>
>> Many elephants and apes are respected (abstract)
>> painters. Every one that paints will emphatically and
>> enthusiastically request brushes, paint, and canvas; and every
>> one of them will get upset if people try to take the canvas
>> away before they're finished. They make specific decisions of
>> color, brush size, etc.
>
> all true but unfortunately this does not prove that these
> animals appreciate what they are doing as art. It is more
> likely that it is just a pleasurable sensory excercise for
> them. Reinforced by the reactions of the Humans around them.
>
> The very fact that their 'art' is classed as abstract ( a word
> which here means unrecognisable as something figurative) suggest
> that it is simply animals waving a stick around.
>
> Now if they painted a recognisable figurative work, that would
> be another kettle of fish entirely.......
By your standards, nothing is art unless you yourself can
recognize what it represents. Virtually every artist alive and
most art patrons and critics would laugh or sneer at you.
The fact is that, at its essence, /all/ art is ``just a
pleasurable sensory exercise'' for the artist and for the
audience. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to come up with a
better definition.
Animal art has been praised by critics and prized by art lovers
and collecters. And scorned by some, but this is true of all but
a select handful of ``masters''--and, even then, you'll find
dissenters. Who are you to decide that the deliberate creations of
an intelligent being acting in every way consistent with that of
an artist do not constitute art?
The thought that art must be representational itself demonstrates
a very immature understanding of art on your part. ``Art
is the lie that tells the truth.'' No great art is purely
representational; even photography must find a unique perspective
to transcend the mundane. As an artist's technique is perfected,
the artist is more and more likely to consciously choose to
distort reality, subtly or with great abandon. Abstract art is no
more and no less than the artist's ultimate distortion of reality,
thus creating a brand-new world that could not possibly exist
anywhere else.
Of course, some do a better job at it than others.
Legion
I am not saying that art has to be figurative I am simply pointing out that
the term 'abstract art' does have a tendency to be applied as a validating
term for that which could just as easily be random marks on a page.
> The fact is that, at its essence, /all/ art is ``just a
> pleasurable sensory exercise'' for the artist and for the
> audience. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to come up with a
> better definition.
>
> Animal art has been praised by critics and prized by art lovers
> and collecters. And scorned by some, but this is true of all but
> a select handful of ``masters''--and, even then, you'll find
> dissenters. Who are you to decide that the deliberate creations of
> an intelligent being acting in every way consistent with that of
> an artist do not constitute art?
But this is my point. There is no way of knowing whether an animal is
acting in a way consistent with a human artist. Art, abstract or not is
called art because it is a creative statement, it has meaning and form, in
short it is a result of deliberate intention. We can know this as Humans
because we have th alternative verbal means to relate the meaning of the
narrative if it is not obvious, this means we can be sure whther it is 'art'
or not. With an animal, there is no way for that narrative to be
communicated and to assume that a creature that has not evolved to fulfill
the same potential as the Human species is capable or even interested in
producing the same level of concious creativity is frankly, insulting.
I just want to emphasise that I am not ruling out the possibility that you
are in fact correct, but for me it is an Occam's razor situation. If a huge
number animals were spontaneously creating 'art' I would maybe be more on
your side. But the fact that we are talking out a few animals encouraged to
daub paint in an unnattural (for them) environment leads me to believe that
we are not talking about a in-built desire for animals to express themselves
creatively.
>
> The thought that art must be representational itself demonstrates
> a very immature understanding of art on your part. ``Art
> is the lie that tells the truth.'' No great art is purely
> representational; even photography must find a unique perspective
> to transcend the mundane. As an artist's technique is perfected,
> the artist is more and more likely to consciously choose to
> distort reality, subtly or with great abandon. Abstract art is no
> more and no less than the artist's ultimate distortion of reality,
> thus creating a brand-new world that could not possibly exist
> anywhere else.
>
At the risk of getting drawn into another Usenet cat fight I think that your
assertion that something like art which takes a great deal of talent not to
mention years of training in some cases can just be picked up instantly by
an animal and be afforded the same level of credibility as the work of a
Human artist is obscene.
Yes it is interesting, but to me making animals walk in paint and then walk
on a piece of paper is a short jump from dressing them up in clothes and
putting them on Tea bag adverts.
It is demeaning for them AND us.
Legion
> Legion wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >> ralph wrote:
> >>
> >>> David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> writes
> >>>
> >>>> Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life,
> >>>> art, music, and such?
> >>>
> >>> It's not just an assumption, but observation and
> >>> reporting. I have never seen another animal species
> >>> appearing to appreciate art or architecture, or heard of
> >>> anyone else doing so.
> >>
> >> So, because YOU have not heard of it, it must not exist?
> >
> > The problem here is to define how you tell when someone
> > appreciates something as opposed to simply being around when
> > it happens.
> >
> > How can you prove that you appreciate art or music Dave??
>
> The thing that needs proving here is your archaic concept that we
> MUST be separated from other animals.
It is not a question of whether I think we must be seperated from other
animals, we are, this is self-evident.
How many animals have you seen Making a fire recently or cooking food or
arguing concepts on Usenet for that matter.
Of course we are all animals but our evolution has put us in an entirely
different league and makes us socially and technologically superior to the
rest of the animal kingdom on this planet.
But this lands us with a huge responsibility. As we are capable of literally
changing the face of this planet by our will alone, it is down to us to
ensure it is cared for and that means all the other animals fall under our
custodianship. The problem with the archaic view of man's dominion over
animals is that it all too often came from the point of view that nature is
something 'other' to taken from or beaten back to make way for Humans. We
need a more enlightened attitude than this , we are interconnected with the
other living things on this planet, but that does not make us 'just another
animal'.
> >>> Music is a slightly different issue, in that domestic
> >>> animals do react favourably to some music.
> >
> > What is classed as a favourable reaction??
>
> Derailing?
Not really sure what you mean!!?!?!
Joseph H
Excellent. I support all your sentiments there. I just have one small
reservation. I think EVERY animal, including the human being, is "just
another animal". This has implications for all our claims to special
rights and natural rights and inalienable rights etc. If we are just
another animal how could we claim such exceptional rights? Why us and
not all other creatures?
But having said that, not all animals are the same. Different creatures
have different skills. I have no wish to enter a debate here as to
which creature is superior to another. To me it is an invidious debate.
Each creature has its range of capabilities and no more. The human
being has the particular range of deliberative skills and capabilities
you outline above. I think seeing this - and no longer claiming to see
what is merely fanciful and/or self-regarding - assists us in focusing
our attention on what role we should adopt in relation to all the other
creatures of the planet and indeed in relation to the planet itself.
Whether we should have a "role" at all is a moot point. Some will
reject any assumtion of a role. But we have such a powerful impact on
the planet we inhabit that it would be extremely short-sighted and
unintelligent not to formulate - even in our own self-interest - a mode
of behaviour for the future.
I think this has implications for the ongoing debate here about values.
The terms "objective" and "subjective" crop up most often. I think one,
the former, is a synonyn for what was never possible anyway; and the
other, the latter, is too often confused with the purely whimsical and
arbitrary. I think our increasing awareness of the true - true, as in
factual, whether "scientific" or historical - nature of our existence
and the growing debate on the role mentioned above gives purpose and
point to the debate. Values do not, or should not, arise in a vacuum.
They should reflect the knowledge and the perspective of the age. Our
knowledge and our perspective now is far more global - in every sense -
than in the past and this will inevitably be reflected in the values we
create.
Joseph H
downint...@yahoo.com
> reject any assumtion of a role. But we have such a powerful impact on
> the planet we inhabit that it would be extremely short-sighted and
> unintelligent not to formulate - even in our own self-interest - a mode
> of behaviour for the future.
Isn't 'our' own self-interest a bit of a stretch. If I am just an
animal, then either my genes will compel me to care about future
organisms or they won't. If they don't, unless I think that pollution
has reached such horrible levels that it might actually kill me, why
should I care? NO animals I know take into account how their
overgrazing (used here as a broad metaphor) will affect other animals
or plants, for that matter. Why should I? some sort of aesthetic
urge? Or the genetically predetermined urge to consider myself "good"?
since most humanists consider animals complicated machines, do we not
also fall into that category, and won't the future, already determined
by our genes and other vicissitudes of matter, be the same future, in
any case. Free will has not been proven by science and falls into the
dustbin of irrational beliefs along with God.
But then if you don't think animals are 'just animals' in the
restricted and irrational sense that science perceives them, and you
also don't box humans in to this limited box, there might be some
reason to have a discussion of what to do, what is good and so on.
Otherwise it is absolutely equivalent to the (mechanical) bleating of
sheep when they are scared. A row of dominoes falling in the nervous
system. A sound amongst sounds, full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing.
Ben Goren
> At the risk of getting drawn into another Usenet cat fight I
> think that your assertion that something like art which takes a
> great deal of talent not to mention years of training in some
> cases can just be picked up instantly by an animal and be
> afforded the same level of credibility as the work of a Human
> artist is obscene.
>
> Yes it is interesting, but to me making animals walk in paint
> and then walk on a piece of paper is a short jump from dressing
> them up in clothes and putting them on Tea bag adverts.
Look. It ain't my fault that you just put your foot in your
mouth--quite an impressive feat for somebody whose head is already
so far up his own ass. You obviously have no fucking clue just
what it is that animals do to create art.
You're obviously salivating to prove that they're just dumb
beasts, so why woudn't you at least take two minutes to do some
Google searches to try to find some supporting evidence for your
case?
Here, asshole, have some toilet paper to wipe your face off:
http://www.abslogic.com/AnimalArt.htm
http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/splash.php
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4712948
> It is demeaning for them AND us.
Yes, your pig-headed idiocy sure is.
Legion
> Legion wrote:
>
> > At the risk of getting drawn into another Usenet cat fight I
> > think that your assertion that something like art which takes a
> > great deal of talent not to mention years of training in some
> > cases can just be picked up instantly by an animal and be
> > afforded the same level of credibility as the work of a Human
> > artist is obscene.
> >
> > Yes it is interesting, but to me making animals walk in paint
> > and then walk on a piece of paper is a short jump from dressing
> > them up in clothes and putting them on Tea bag adverts.
>
> Look. It ain't my fault that you just put your foot in your
> mouth--quite an impressive feat for somebody whose head is already
> so far up his own ass. You obviously have no fucking clue just
> what it is that animals do to create art.
>
> You're obviously salivating to prove that they're just dumb
> beasts, so why woudn't you at least take two minutes to do some
> Google searches to try to find some supporting evidence for your
> case?
>
> Here, asshole, have some toilet paper to wipe your face off:
>
> http://www.abslogic.com/AnimalArt.htm
>
> http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/splash.php
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4712948
>
First off, no need to get riled Ben we are just having a discussion, just
because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't respect your position. The name
calling and agression is beneath you.
OK, I will admit that this is an interesting area and that there may indeed
be some real creative thinking at work here. OK happy now?
I still don't think that this work is in the same league as intentional
narative, figurative or conceptual Human art though. This is at best the
level of a very young child and is a response to a contrived environment.
Somebody has started this ball rolling with these animals. Even the article
you have cited as proof uses words like:
"is that it was *claimed* to be expressions of life "
Indeed the only reason these animals may continue to perform these
activities is to illicit a favourable response (rewards, prasise) from their
Human carers. It is all too easy to anthropomorphise this situation and
ascribe the same level of desire and intention as a Human would have.
I guess time will tell, and I certainly would not want to deny these animals
the chance to develop these skills.
My only real problem with it is that with so may problems in the world,
maybe the Human time involved would be better spent, say preventing poachers
who capture Gorillas and other animals for illegal uses like the Bushmeat
trade. These are importantissues as I'm sure you will agree. If something is
not done about this kind of thing, Koko and Michael and others like them
really will be rare and special.
Thanks for highlighting something that I had not given more than a passing
thought to before!
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>Legion wrote:
>>
>>>"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>ralph wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life,
>>>>>>art, music, and such?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not just an assumption, but observation and
>>>>>reporting. I have never seen another animal species
>>>>>appearing to appreciate art or architecture, or heard of
>>>>>anyone else doing so.
>>>>
>>>>So, because YOU have not heard of it, it must not exist?
>>>
>>>The problem here is to define how you tell when someone
>>>appreciates something as opposed to simply being around when
>>>it happens.
>>>
>>>How can you prove that you appreciate art or music Dave??
>>
>>The thing that needs proving here is your archaic concept that we
>>MUST be separated from other animals.
>
> It is not a question of whether I think we must be seperated from other
> animals, we are, this is self-evident.
It is self evident that you need to rethink this before we go any
further.
We are animals. It is the height of arrogance to assume otherwise.
suz...@hwcn.org
Suz:
Yes. But is value independant of perception? Lets look at example of
'Justice'.
If we are on two opposing sides during the war lets say. The 'Hero' of
one army would be percevied as 'war criminal ' by the other side. This
time both perception can have basis and support of objective evidence,
such that this person called Hero have killed many people and thus was
rewarded for his ferocity. One side is justified to call him Hero
because of efficiency in competing a mission given to him, the other
side is justified in calling him 'war criminal' because he or she did
kill a lot of people in the process.
>
> Religion is a good example of subjective truth which gives rise to specific
> value systems. They are not in the same class as Objective truth.
>
> Objective truth is that which is strengthened by continuous supportive
> evidence. Subjective truth requires no such thing.
>
> Value based on subjective truth will always be flawed. Value based on
> objective thruth (that is observable, measurable and continuously reinforced
> truth) Is as solid a truth as you can get.
Suz:
Yes. I believe we are disagreeing on whether value can be an objective
truth. Perhaps you can give me an example.
>
> Perception *is* part of theHuman condition but it is too shaky to be relied
> upon for a value system.
>
That means we are at
> > > > begining with value system based on
> > > > fiction...aghrr@%$&*^
> > > Wha? No And no again.
> > > Yes. Because values and truth change as time goes by and as new
> generations arrive.
>
Objective truth changes little, it is as robust as can be seen in a
complex
> Universe, subjective truth changes according to mood....
>
It would have to if it was to reflect value of the age one lives in.
>
>
> This is the main problem I think when creating a value system. The system
> remains the same but values and truth change and then oneday you realise
> that our value system is obsolite and has little to do with truth. No?
>
> Agreed, value systems based on Subjective truth will always be weak and
> unreliable. The shelf-life is *very* short.
>
How about we abandon value system instead?
> > >
> > > Radical and drastic, don't you think? Because we don't know everything
> > > down the finest detail we drop everything. Let's build, instead, on
> > > what we do know.
> > >
> > > Hmmm...may be you misunderstood me. I din't say we should drop
> everything only value system based on truth.
>
> What else is a value system based on than 'perceived' truth??
Suz: Exactly my point.
>
> > > I only tried to point out that we can not come up with value system
> > that is based on truth. Mostly because values are intertwined with
> > culture and
> > as such very versitile and subjective. For example, kissing a hand of
> > elder would be
> > percieved here as perhaps kissing up to a person or treating that
> > person
> > better then he/she deserves but in some other countries it is common
> > act
> > of showing respect for elderly ie your grandparentsor
> > greatgrandparents. Also, I think
> > you would have problem in finding concensus on what people see as
> > values. Some culture see respecting elderly
> > as a value, some don't. Also as I said before, values and truth
> > changes, what is true today may not be so in ten years so it's hard to
> > have a system that will not eventually fail.But may be you have an idea
> > how to overcome this obstacles
> > in that case please share.
> > Please forgive me for my overcomplicated and confusing entry prior to
> > that.
>
> I think there is a sharp distinction to be made between the two type of
> truth. Everything you have stated above holds for Subjective truth. No
> argument there......
>
> As for Objective (Scientific) truth, I think that is a different story...
>
Suz: Do tell. My conclusion is that value is subjective because it is
based on percieved truth. I fail to see how it can be objective. So I
would love to see examples that enforce your conclusion and perhaps
refute mine.
regards,
Suzana
> --
>
Joseph H
downint...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Whether we should have a "role" at all is a moot point. Some will
> > reject any assumtion of a role. But we have such a powerful impact on
> > the planet we inhabit that it would be extremely short-sighted and
> > unintelligent not to formulate - even in our own self-interest - a mode
> > of behaviour for the future.
> > Joseph H
>
> Isn't 'our' own self-interest a bit of a stretch. If I am just an
> animal, then either my genes will compel me to care about future
> organisms or they won't. If they don't, unless I think that pollution
> has reached such horrible levels that it might actually kill me, why
> should I care? NO animals I know take into account how their
> overgrazing (used here as a broad metaphor) will affect other animals
> or plants, for that matter. Why should I? some sort of aesthetic
> urge? Or the genetically predetermined urge to consider myself "good"?
> since most humanists consider animals complicated machines, do we not
> also fall into that category, and won't the future, already determined
> by our genes and other vicissitudes of matter, be the same future, in
> any case. Free will has not been proven by science and falls into the
> dustbin of irrational beliefs along with God.
Uhhhhh! No other animal - as far as I know - has the capacity to
realise that overgrazing, or its equivalent, is detrimental. We do. We
also have the capacity to decide, or not to decide, to do something
about it. we have the capacity to take measures or diversify
deliberately. The existence, or not, of something called "free will" is
not a factor here. It's yet another academic red herring that
stultifies the mind, But, hey, does the mind exist? Noooooohhhh, don't
go there!
And when I say we are "just an animal" that is not meant as a
disparagement. It is meant as a clarification and a paring down to
essentials.
Joseph H
Oh, Legion, Legion....it is surely fine and noble, but deeply unwise,
to be so considerate to the non-gentleman called Ben. You are truly a
Christian. You will meet too many Bens for your own well-being!
Legion
> Legion wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >>Legion wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>>>ralph wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> writes
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life,
> >>>>>>art, music, and such?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's not just an assumption, but observation and
> >>>>>reporting. I have never seen another animal species
> >>>>>appearing to appreciate art or architecture, or heard of
> >>>>>anyone else doing so.
> >>>>
> >>>>So, because YOU have not heard of it, it must not exist?
> >>>
> >>>The problem here is to define how you tell when someone
> >>>appreciates something as opposed to simply being around when
> >>>it happens.
> >>>
> >>>How can you prove that you appreciate art or music Dave??
> >>
> >>The thing that needs proving here is your archaic concept that we
> >>MUST be separated from other animals.
> >
> > It is not a question of whether I think we must be seperated from other
> > animals, we are, this is self-evident.
>
> It is self evident that you need to rethink this before we go any
> further.
>
> We are animals. It is the height of arrogance to assume otherwise.
>
I did say we are separate from *other* animals, this presupposes that we are
also animals.
All the best Dave
David V.
>
> at the risk of getting into high-school semantics..........
You've already entered that school.... and seem to be stuck
there. As you can see, I'm not really interested in this
discussion. It's obvious that you cannot admit that humans are
not superior to other animals.
Roger Johansson
Joseph H wrote:
> But this is a boring topic! Oh, how I long to get my teeth into
> something really challenging. Like Creationism, say.
Religious people do not use clear language to say things, they often
use symbolism.
So I see no reason to accept the definition of creationism which some
spread, based on a literary interpretation of old scriptures.
Instead we need to investigate this subject as criminologists
investigare a situation which some people are trying to hide.
Most religions have a taboo against talking openly about these things.
A few examples of creation myths from different ancient sources:
Gen 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living
being."
>From greek creation myths:
Prometheus shaped man out of mud, and Athena breathed life into his
clay figure.
Ancient creation myth from Nigeria:
God created the first human being with the help of the moon. God
kneaded the body out of clay. Then God covered it with skin and the end
God poured blood into it.
(Blood often stands for spiritual life in creation myths, to pour blood
into a man is the same as blowing spirit into a man)
We see when we study creation myths and creationist cultures from all
over the world that the jewish creation myths are not unique in any
way. Similar stories about how men are created and how the social world
is divided are found in many creation stories
All these creation myths are expressed in symbolism.
The religious people never tell in clear language what it is all about,
because religion is about secrets, a secret social organisation.
So there is no reason for an investigator to take anything they say
seriously if taken literary and without critical interpretation of
their motivation to not say the truth in clear language.
The common ingredients in creationistic cultures are gender roles,
mobbing, creating the holy wrath, creating strong and manly men out of
boys, how to make the man very determined, creation of a special state
of mind in the man, the holy spirit, or hallucinogenic dreams about a
totem animal, bravery, toughness, creating strong and violent warriors
out of the boys, creating the marriage, the woman is the lifegiver in
some creationist cultures.
So it looks like a creationist culture is a secret social system for
controlling the members of the tribe, for controlling their social life
and sex life, for controlling who will be allowed to be happy, to be in
heaven, or who is to be unhappy, being in hell.
It has similarities with mobbing in a school yard. The tough kids abuse
the others, some of the abused ones become members of the upper class
socially, and these supermen (gods?) are using the weaker minds for
pleasure, or abuse them.
Creationism divides the society in two halves, it creates a dualistic
world, the symbols for this divided society are heaven and hell, the
sky and the earth, land and water, etc..
--
Roger J.
Joseph H
David V. wrote:
> Legion wrote:
> >
> > at the risk of getting into high-school semantics..........
>
> You've already entered that school.... and seem to be stuck
> there. As you can see, I'm not really interested in this
> discussion. It's obvious that you cannot admit that humans are
> not superior to other animals.
This, unusually for you, is not intelligent, David. Superior? What's
superior? How superior? It's such a catchall. Faster, stronger, more
passionate, more intelligent, greater sense of humour...what areas had
you in mind? Or were you lodged in the dreaded area of ontology? Human
beings are ontologically more superior....was that your question? One
animal could be superior in all the ways mentioned above without in any
sense being ontologically superior - because really that means nothing.
But, having said that, I do suspect that many of our little humanists
out there do cling to some secret notion of superiority.
Joseph H
Why analyse what is untrue? It's difficult enough to see what is true.
It's difficult enough to keep one's eye on the truth. Our ready facilty
for creation - in every sense - has served us well during all our time
of ignorance on this planet. It filled the void. But now knowledge,
enough knowledge to be going on with, is available. Focus on that.
Creation, in the sense you address, has had its day, and its night -
especially the latter. Let's see the light.
Joseph H
www.humanisation.org
>
>
> --
> Roger J.
ralph
<cj.mcc...@btinternet.com> writes
>> > Music is a slightly different issue, in that domestic animals
>> > do react favourably to some music.
>
>What is classed as a favourable reaction??
Firstly, paying deliberate attention. Secondly, purring, tail wagging
and similar signs of approval.
--
ralph
ralph
writes
>ralph wrote:
>> David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>> Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life, art,
>>> music, and such?
>>>
>> It's not just an assumption, but observation and reporting. I have
>>never seen another animal species appearing to appreciate
>> art or architecture, or heard of anyone else doing so.
>
>So, because YOU have not heard of it, it must not exist?
Obviously not. Others have subsequently suggested examples, although I
share Joseph/Legion's scepticism.
>
>> Music is a slightly different issue, in that domestic animals do
>>react favourably to some music.
>> But the animal distinction is not the important part. The important
>>part is that we have aesthetic appreciation built in, and I need a
>>term to describe this.
>
>Then the animal distinction IS the important part. You feel a
>need to separate yourself from the rest of the animal life on
>this planet. I don't.
I don't feel a need to separate myself from other animals, but I am able
to see very significant differences between humans and the rest. You are
too intelligent not to be able to see these, even if for some reason you
may claim not to.
> Why do you feel the need to use a word with
>so much religious baggage? I'm sure that if you tried you could
>come up with a different word..... that is.... if you wanted to.
>
>>>> Do you have a better way of describing this phenomenon?
>>> Let's see.... with some help from dictionary.com:
>>> abstract, august, divine, dynamite, elevated, eminent, evil,
>>> exalted, fab, far out, fat, glorious, gorgeous, grand, greatest,
>>>heavenly, heavy, high, holy, ideal, imposing, lofty, magnificent,
>>>majestic, noble, outrageous, proud, resplendent, sacred, solid gold,
>>>splendiferous, splendorous,
>>> stately, super, superb, the most, too much, transcendent,
>>>transcendental, zero cool
>>>
>> Well, thank you for those suggestions. Many would, I think, be
>> unacceptable to most humanists, given their religious connotations.
>>I do not see one which I would find more useful that spirituality.
>
>'Spiritual' has far more religious connotations than any in that
>list..... except maybe sacred, transcendent and such.
It might help if dictionary.com recognised the difference between nouns
and adjectives, and had been compiled by a literate human. To offer
"fat" as an alternative to "spirituality" is - fatuous.
>
>>> It's also the concept that humans need to be raised to a "higher
>>>plane" than our fellow animals that I have a problem
>>> with.
>>>
>> I wouldn't say that we "need" to be raised to a higher plane, rather
>>that we see life as comprising more than exists in the jungle.
>> Do you have a problem with that concept?
>
>Yes. It's an outdated concept. We are animals; no better, no
>worse, than any other animal.
It is, perhaps sadly, not a question of moral values, but intellectual
values, and emotional values. As we progress in these attributes, it is
clearly more relevant today than it has ever been before. That is not my
definition of "outdated".
--
ralph
David V.
> David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>> ralph wrote:
>>
>>> David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>> Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life,
>>>> art, music, and such?
>>>>
>>> It's not just an assumption, but observation and
>>> reporting. I have never seen another animal species
>>> appearing to appreciate art or architecture, or heard of
>>> anyone else doing so.
>>
>>
>> So, because YOU have not heard of it, it must not exist?
>
> Obviously not. Others have subsequently suggested examples,
> although I share Joseph/Legion's scepticism.
A thoroughly egocentric reply.
>>> Music is a slightly different issue, in that domestic
>>> animals do react favourably to some music. But the animal
>>> distinction is not the important part. The important part
>>> is that we have aesthetic appreciation built in, and I
>>> need a term to describe this.
>>
>> Then the animal distinction IS the important part. You feel
>> a need to separate yourself from the rest of the animal life
>> on this planet. I don't.
>
> I don't feel a need to separate myself from other animals....
That's not true. Your own words show that you do have some
emotional need to separate yourself from the animal world; "Then
the animal distinction IS the important part."
--
Roger Johansson
Joseph H wrote:
> Why analyse what is untrue? It's difficult enough to see what is true.
Because a lot of people still believe in what is untrue, and those
beliefs cause a lot of problems for us humans all over the world, but
especially in the middle east and in USA, and we see how much violence
comes from these two areas.
> It's difficult enough to keep one's eye on the truth. Our ready facilty
> for creation - in every sense - has served us well during all our time
> of ignorance on this planet.
"served us well"? I hope you understand that our past is a horrible
history filled with violence and human suffering, slavery, opression,
and most of that has been caused by creationism, which has been
conserved by the churches and backed up by ruthless rulers so this
stone age system has followed us all the way into our present world.
Wise men have struggled for thousands of years to abolish this old
social system.
Socrates was killed for his sceptical and critical rational views,
Jesus was killed for trying to inject some humanity into the world.
Millions of less known thinking people have been killed or have been
forced to shut up about this for thousands of years.
> It filled the void. But now knowledge,
> enough knowledge to be going on with, is available. Focus on that.
> Creation, in the sense you address, has had its day, and its night -
> especially the latter. Let's see the light.
My country was most secularized and civilized during the 60ies.
After a long and hard struggle of the workers movement to educate and
organize the workers and to spread modern thinking based on equality,
human rights, welfare for all to stop the abuse of poor people by the
employers, workers unions and the socialist party, which was in power
for most of the 20th century.
After that we have seen how an ever increasing inflow of american
content in our media channels have resurrected the creationist culture,
the society has become more violent and brutal, the children are
learning how to abuse the weaker minds and the creation of an upper
class socially, based on creationist views, has become a big problem.
The religion was totally out of the picture in the 60ies in my country
and we never thought it would ever become an important factor again,
but now we see how religion is back and it has regained a lot of power
and influence.
If we ignore a big problem and just look at the few areas where this
problem is not dominating the picture we would not do our job as
philosophers, as critical thinkers, as responsible journalists, as
authors, etc..
This problem can only be solved by information and discussions, and it
is not so difficult to spread information in this age. The same
technology that spreads creationism today can also be used to solve the
problem, by spreading the views of science, investigative journalism,
the views of humanism.
When religious people come into power in the society they use that
power to harass the secular people and they promote people who share
their views.
A few years ago the highest officer of law in my country accused a man
for raping his own daughter hundreds of times, and for satanic ritual
killing of children. He and his best friend got 8 years in jail each.
These men were let out of jail a year ago, after serving 3 years of
that sentence, as a result of investigative journalism. The reporter
found that a lot of evidence which showed he could not have done this
had been classified as secret and had been kept away from the defence.
The man had been on his job every day, and the girl had been present in
school every day so he could not have raped her day after day during
daytime as the accusations said. The girl had been strongly influenced
by reading a book about satanic rituals and many of her stories came
directly out of the book, the whole story was invented and totally
untrue.
This was an example of what creationist views can cause, and how
religious people in power use their power to further their confused
views about fighting against the evil in this world.
--
Roger J.
Ben Goren
> Indeed the only reason these animals may continue to perform
> these activities is to illicit a favourable response (rewards,
> prasise) from their Human carers. It is all too easy to
> anthropomorphise this situation and ascribe the same level of
> desire and intention as a Human would have.
Oh, bloody hell. Look. Just go ahead and research the damned
issue, will you? Keep shoving your foot down your throat like this
and soon it'll be coming out your ass.
Many non-human animals will insist on painting even *after* their
humans try to stop them--their reactions are identical to what you
would get if you tried to take an unfinished painting away from a
human. And similar behaviors *have* been observed in the wild. And
countless *humans* create art just to make a paycheck or for the
applause. And...and I'm wasting my fingers on you.
Why are you so fucking desperate to pretend that the difference
between humans and other animals is qualitative rather than
quantitative?
Joseph H
ralph wrote:
> In message <0oGdnS-0Psx...@sti.net>, David V. <sp...@hotmail.com>
> writes
> >ralph wrote:
> >> David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> writes
> >>
> >>> Why do you assume other animals do not appreciate life, art,
> >>> music, and such?
> >>>
> >> It's not just an assumption, but observation and reporting. I have
> >>never seen another animal species appearing to appreciate
> >> art or architecture, or heard of anyone else doing so.
> >
> >So, because YOU have not heard of it, it must not exist?
>
> Obviously not. Others have subsequently suggested examples, although I
> share Joseph/Legion's scepticism.
Just to clarify - again: I am Joseph H. I have been other things in the
past. But I am not Legion. Believe it or not somebody has entered the
lists who supports some of what I have to say. I hope in the future
there will be many more. I haven't given up hope for you yet, Ralph. I
see you as my Moses figure of the future.
Joseph H
Roger Johansson wrote:
> Joseph H wrote:
>
> > Why analyse what is untrue? It's difficult enough to see what is true.
>
> Because a lot of people still believe in what is untrue, and those
> beliefs cause a lot of problems for us humans all over the world, but
> especially in the middle east and in USA, and we see how much violence
> comes from these two areas.
>
> > It's difficult enough to keep one's eye on the truth. Our ready facilty
> > for creation - in every sense - has served us well during all our time
> > of ignorance on this planet.
>
> "served us well"? I hope you understand that our past is a horrible
> history filled with violence and human suffering, slavery, opression,
> and most of that has been caused by creationism, which has been
> conserved by the churches and backed up by ruthless rulers so this
> stone age system has followed us all the way into our present world.
I well understand our "horrible history". I think your conflation of
all the ruling myths of the past with the thing you call "creationism"
doesn't serve a useful purpose. It's too broad and undersestimates the
difficulties and differences of the past - and of the present.
What difficulties? The difficulties of reintegration. We moved apart,
set up our particular cultues, formed our beliefs etc. And then our
numbers increased and we met again. Were we to agree voluntarily to
coalesce? To coalesce with an enemy we hardly regarded as human? No. So
kingdoms and states and empires became forced entities, suppressing all
our traditional rights and freedoms. Throughout most of the Eurasian
landmass such entities persisted for the last 2500 years, longer in
some parts. Only the rediscovery, in ther last 500 years, of ancient
concepts of freedom and the mobility and productivity made possible by
technology has finally dissolved most of this tyranny. I call it
tyranny, as you do, but I also recognise necessity. Li Ssu, for
example, engineered the unification of China, along with the Emperor
Qin Shihuang, or any such spelling. He was a noted - notorious! -
tyrant. But in the absence of the Li Ssus of this world what would have
happened? Would the warlords of China have voluntarily come together
and buried their differences? Buried each other, more likely.
Learn to live with complexity and ambivalence, Roger.
I take your point. But my point in all these postings is that we have
to create a new truth, a new promise, a new hope, to counter the
insidious work of the zealots. I take the nature of past beliefs for
granted. Let them be. We have listened to them sang to them, prayed to
them, for millennia. Let them be. Now it's time to venture forth with a
broader banner than the narrow one offered by humanism.
Roger Johansson
> > "served us well"? I hope you understand that our past is a horrible
> > history filled with violence and human suffering, slavery, opression,
> > and most of that has been caused by creationism, which has been
> > conserved by the churches and backed up by ruthless rulers so this
> > stone age system has followed us all the way into our present world.
> I well understand our "horrible history". I think your conflation of
> all the ruling myths of the past with the thing you call "creationism"
> doesn't serve a useful purpose. It's too broad and undersestimates the
> difficulties and differences of the past - and of the present.
You must be inexperienced socially to not understand that our western
societies are still ruled secretly by these old traditions.
Please don't take that as a way to put you down or as unfair criticism,
it is a simple fact that a lot of people are very unaware of the secret
social processes.
I did not know anything about it myself until I was in my 40ies.
I had learned a lot from books, but I was fairly inexperienced
socially.
These old creation myths and the following written creation religions
describe how to use mobbing to make people "stronger" and that is still
going on in our social life in school yards, workplaces, homes, etc..
This is only becoming a news item when somebody loses control and kills
a lot of people in school shootings or similar events in workplaces,
but we seldom get to know the deeper reasons behind, because most
people who work in media are themselves part of the secret social
system.
These old myths describe how to train and manipulate youngsters to fit
into the gender roles, and those social processes are still active in
the population, although no longer supported by official laws and the
church has lost influence officially, we still have gender roles and
base our social life on those roles.
> technology has finally dissolved most of this tyranny. I call it
> tyranny, as you do, but I also recognise necessity. Li Ssu, for
> example, engineered the unification of China, along with the Emperor
> Qin Shihuang, or any such spelling. He was a noted - notorious! -
> tyrant. But in the absence of the Li Ssus of this world what would have
> happened? Would the warlords of China have voluntarily come together
> and buried their differences? Buried each other, more likely.
The old systems used tyranny because tyranny is the way nature works,
and it took a long time for mankind to free ourselves from the
principles we could call the laws of the jungle. We can use our
resources better if we learn to cooperate peacefully, but the
principles of tyranny still lingers on as cultural traditions.
Creationism is the most violent and detrimental of the traditions which
still are influencing our world very much.
> > If we ignore a big problem and just look at the few areas where this
> > problem is not dominating the picture we would not do our job as
> > philosophers, as critical thinkers, as responsible journalists, as
> > authors, etc..
> I take your point. But my point in all these postings is that we have
> to create a new truth, a new promise, a new hope, to counter the
> insidious work of the zealots.
It would be much more effective to investigate how our own society
actually works today, what old traditions are still causing a lot of
problems, and explain to people why we should abolish those practices.
There is no need for a new truth, we already have the modern ideals,
laws and official principles, which would work well if it wasn't for
all the people who work hard secretly to preserve old traditions and
old ways to manipulate and force people to follow stone age rules in
social life
> I take the nature of past beliefs for
> granted. Let them be. We have listened to them sang to them, prayed to
> them, for millennia. Let them be. Now it's time to venture forth with a
> broader banner than the narrow one offered by humanism.
Dark forces are holding us back. We need to address that problem
somehow.
> > This problem can only be solved by information and discussions, and it
> > is not so difficult to spread information in this age. The same
> > technology that spreads creationism today can also be used to solve the
> > problem, by spreading the views of science, investigative journalism,
> > the views of humanism.
--
Roger J.
Joseph H
Oh, Roger, you're fixated. If - and it's a large IF - if that were the
case then it only proves my point that we need a new truth to scuttle
these creationist critters. The modern ideals - which haven't done
badly, by the way - are predicated on individual freedom. One problem
with individula freedom is that it divides us into atomised entities.
We may fight together to gain our individual freedom - but once we have
it we spin off to suit ourselves. Fine, of course - but your friends,
the creationists, and other such zealots, still cling to the old
clinging mentality. Not for them the soulless existence of the modern
individual. Thus, collectively, they generate a resistance to the
freedoms in question. Or they constitute a powerful wedge in society.
To paraphrase an existing cliche: for backwardness to flourish it only
requires that forward-thinkers stay in bed with their mistresses or
boyfriends. Or something like that.
>
> > I take the nature of past beliefs for
> > granted. Let them be. We have listened to them sang to them, prayed to
> > them, for millennia. Let them be. Now it's time to venture forth with a
> > broader banner than the narrow one offered by humanism.
>
> Dark forces are holding us back. We need to address that problem
> somehow.
That's called winter in Sweden, Roger. The rest of the world is already
into spring.