Culture and Psychology
alan jones
>
> "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:3C6ACBA5...@freeuk.com...
>
> > Behaviour Modification.... [ or Science, culture and control ]
> >
> > What if you came to discover that the strings of popular culture were
> > being used as a covert form of 'behaviour modification'. What if you
> > discovered that to shape the culture was to shape human behaviour,
> > would you share your truth?
>
> Modifying others behaviour is something humans do. Human behaviour
> begets human behaviour.
Ok, consider the ramifications when a relative few act via the science of
Behaviour psychology and through the technology of the mass media, to
predetermine the behaviour of the many.
Humanity's complexity comes through its diversity. Our apparent complexity
of thought comes through the variety of influences we are exposed. When
the media, the culture simplifies what we are exposed to, to a limited sub set
of possible ideas, then we become creatures of limited determinism, predictable
manageable types. When the mass media promotes a limited language, then the
result is understandably limited range of thought.
Its our many and varied interactions that spawns the variety and complexity
of humanity. In a sense humanity is a super organism, where relatively simple
creatures of limited determinism contribute, to inform whole with a much
greater complexity. Look at the limited imagination of the regimes that look
to control the thought of it's populations, and immediately you see the limits
of a state sponsored program of Behaviour modification.
In that light, consider the effects of the mass media (increasingly a global
media), on the lives, psychology and imagination of the whole. Of course
its not a new observation, Huxley's "Brave New World" http://www.huxley.net/bnw/
was a warning on the future trend of humanity. It was an observation rooted in
its times, [on the eve of] the second world war. [Huxley projected the ideas
that flourished at that time amongst a particular class, and projected them into
the future, to present the consequences of those ideas]. His wry commentary
showed a world where a relatively small group could sublimate the minds of a
much larger group, such as to turn them into docile obedient products.
The irony now is that the warning 'Brave new world' has become for some, a blue
print of things to come. The technology has moved on since then and continues
to move on. Without a moral voice, what might we become?
Beyond freedom and Dignity....
In 1971 the eminent Behavioural psychologist Frederick Skinner, published
his (notorious) book "Beyond freedom and Dignity". This book coming from
a pioneer in developing behaviourist laboratory techniques, caused a storm
and was condemned by most. What did he say?
In short he said his observations had lead to the conclusions that man due
to a phenomenon he called 'operant conditioning', was largely deterministic,
and was without free will. A state for which he coined the phrase
"Autonomous man".
"Little or nothing remains for autonomous man to do and receive credit
for doing. He does not engage in moral struggle and therefore has no
chance to be a moral hero or credited with inner virtues. But our task
is not to encourage moral struggle or to build or demonstrate inner
virtues. It is to make life less punishing and in doing so to release
for more reinforcing activities the time and energy consumed in the
avoidance of punishment"
Skinner thought that all there was to our beliefs, intentions and what we
might call our free will, was 'behaviour'. He further bolstered his
conclusion by referring to this 'operant conditioning'. This deficit of
the human condition, was not only what determine our short falls, it was
a flaw that could be exploited.
He argued, that in the light of social and economic pressures on society,
and in light of mans limited self determinism that society should adopt a
"systematic and scientific program to alter the nature of man." In short he
was arguing for the place of Behaviour modification in society.
Skinner further argued that compassion towards the poor was "misguided",
his proposals instead reduced man to the place of a lab rat. He said, "rewards
should be based upon display of desired behaviors", "dignity" be damned.
According to Skinner "free will" is a myth and illusion...the reason we
believe we have "free will" is because that is a set of behaviours which have
proven quite effective in maximizing individual achievement and individual
rewards.
Beyond Skinner...
Whilst on the face of it, the book was condemned by his contemporaries,
i am forced to wonder if the philosophy of this esteemed Behavioural
psychologist, isn't actually being practised. There would have been those
of like mind, all too willing to adopt the proscribed words of this learned
thinker, this "Atonomous man". His scientific credentials would have been
just enough excuse to adopt this bleak vision.
The late 70's was much like our present day with the same questions being
asked. It was the decade when for the first time, the generation upon
generation cycle of conscripted wars ended in the west, with Vietnam.
The media throughout the 70's was in schisms, signalling a profound
change in the use of culture.
In the same way that the economic philosophy of Adam Smith (circa 1776),
forms the fundamental dogma of our present economic dependencies, might
Skinner's ideas form the new dependency for society? Nietzsche with a twist
of science.
Were his policies adopted how would we know? Would we take the
direction of the culture, for granted. The themes which persist in the
media would be a necessary part of redirecting the culture. With a
suitable catalyst, society could be made to look the other way whilst a
generation grew to accept their new conditions.
Those practising Behaviour modification would render us blind to the
roots of our control, and Such a practice would halt man's progress
towards 'greater' self determinism.
In my opinion it would reinforce the idea and practice of instincts over
reason. It would promote the 'old brain' functions that hardwire behaviour
to instincts [to basic or contrived urges]. It would create the very
"Autonomous man" skinnner condemns us as. Ultimately it would limit
our developing capacity for greater reason.
Behaviouralism as practice[d]....
The public face of Behavioural psychologist talk of promoting 'better'
behaviour, when a description of greater accuracy might use the term
'desired' behaviour. The truth is such a system would be driven by the
motives of those in charge. As such, 'desired' behaviour could just as easily
mean 'better' or 'worst' behaviour. Indeed, Its not too fanciful to imagine
schisms in society being engineered, by promoting 'better' behaviour in
one group, whilst reinforcing 'worst' behaviour in another group. The
schism would occur as each group saw only the differences of behaviour
[or privilege], and formed judgements with no idea for the root causes.
As for the day to day practice, it would be interesting to consider the numbers
of actual behavioural psychologists per head of population, [or even if the
system would want their practice known]. Actual punishment and reward
would be judged and conducted by lesser folks with a second hand idea,
on what it was they were looking for.
Imagine 'non professionals' with a kind of production line mentality, judging
people as having 'passed' or 'failed' according to a few basic and poorly
implemented set of rules. Imagine non professionals with neither the will or
the inclination improve the short falls between theory and practice. Confusing
general fitness, with actual ability. Judging the appearance and not the
circumstance. Simply forcing the system to work.
The key to such a scheme would be this goal of 'desired' behaviour. As for
any long term aim of greater self determinism, [i.e. away from the 'Autonomous
Man'], would not 'Desired' behaviour also, by definition, mean predictable
conditioned behaviour? One could argue, such a sytem would reward ignorance.
So what would it mean for unexpected, unpredicted behaviour? Would should
a system even recognize that prospect? What of those with an 'unforeseen'
sense of the system, would they be accounted for? Or would they be failed,
because they failed to knowingly observe the rules?
Would society encourage the marveric gene, a trend towards greater self
determinism? I wonder.
Yes > Modifying others behaviour is something humans do, But to what end?
Culture and Psychology :-
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3c6de624.44666142%40news.saix.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dculture%2Band%2BPsychology
alan jones wrote:
>
> The Brain wrote:
> >
> > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C6836D7...@freeuk.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > The Brain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3C5ECF6D...@freeuk.com...
> > > >
> > > > > My point of contention with culture comes, when the roles it
> > > > > defines, creates lowered expectation.
> > > > > When the strings of Culture are pulled only by a few, the psychology
> > > > > it promotes reflects the assignations of those few. When we can't see
> > > > > that, and just accept the culture as its presented to us, then their
> > > > > psychologhy becomes ours, and we live our lives bound by their vision.
> > > >
> > > > You seem to have a view that there are actual individuals who pull these
> > > > strings. You cannot name these people -even if that is not your
> > > > intention - because they are more a force of social nature than a group
> > > > of indiviuals with an agenda.
> > >
> > > You know "The Brain" i am usually mindful of replying to posts where the
> > > author has such a short posting history. Particularly when their name
> > > suggest an ego, with some alteria motive. Reading you and in spite of the
> > > illusion of your appearance i'll respond.
> > >
> > > This is not the reply i was tempted to send you, but a reply to another
> > > post, that seems appropriate.
> > >
> > > Perception....
> > >
> > > If reality is a mater of perception then there seems to be several
> > > critical levels of [social] reality. For now 1...6
> > >
> > > Level 1.
> > >
> > > At this level there are those who live simple lives, they follow the
> > > seasons, an humble existence close to nature, their first concern is
> > > existence. They smile at the sun and accept the rain.
> > >
> > > Level 2.
> > >
> > > At this level there are the teaming masses that feel themselves to be
> > > sophisticated in human affairs. They consume the tabloids without
> > > question, they accept the headlines, and never question their proscribed
> > > truths. They accept history and never question the lie. They are the
> > > victims of language, they accept 'fate' and 'destiny' and never question
> > > those who provide their definitions. They accept appearance. The can not
> > > see the game.
> > >
> > > Level 3.
> > >
> > > The next level of reality comes with those who are aware of how the
> > > culture is manipulated, but accept it so long as they too, can profit
> > > from it. They build careers by playing the game. They make the movies,
> > > sing the songs, postulate philosophies, tell the lies the culture will
> > > support. Those of limited talent find short cuts to acclaim, promoted
> > > by those of like mind, they play the game, and close their minds to the
> > > consequences. Through fear, greed or conditioning they play the game,
> > > they hope for privilege, but failing that will settle for the pretence
> > > of power, failing that, survival.
> > >
> > > Level 4.
> > >
> > > Next there is the band of brothers, who take an oath in jest only to
> > > find it is meant in earnest. Power corrupts and an consumes them. These
> > > self appointed gods who whisper believe, whose contempt for humanity has
> > > no bounds, these for whom money has no meaning, and the only currency
> > > of value is history, they control history through slights, passing the ways
> > > and means, down through the generations, [ This mouldy book of hate to be
> > > opened on the pretext of distress ].
> > >
> > > They treat humanity like so many pawns in a game, a move made with each
> > > unwary generation, maintaining their control by promoting those of like
> > > mind, maligning those whose outlook differ. Claiming tradition, they allow
> > > the worst in human instincts to thrive, waiting for the call to cleanse.
> > > They find profit in war. Their selfish pursuits thwart human development,
> > > the poison they short sightedly feed the culture, drags us all down...
> > >
> > > Noting is sacred, not Art, not Language, not Science, not Culture, not
> > > History.
> > >
> > > Level 5.
> > >
> > > Those attaining this level of reality, see the game and its players. This
> > > level of reality calls for an awareness of history and the importance of
> > > culture. This level calls for empathy with the Memories that survive,
> > > recorded in the counter culture; the true Art, that survives to leave
> > > testimony of its time.
> > >
> > > Those at this level see how culture programs our expectations*, they see
> > > the importance of examples, the role models needed to raise aspirations.
> > > They provide the fresh ideas that rises our sights. They provide the
> > > culture of hope, the dreams of liberty. They know the only counter to hate,
> > > is love. If nothing else they record their times, enshrine it in Art, and
> > > leave its as messages, memories, warnings to the succeeding generations.
> > >
> > > Level 6.
> > >
> > > Finally there are the few, who have been able to separate themselves from
> > > their culture, they examine their history and see the need for change, to
> > > break the bind with tradition, they live their lives pursuing their art,
> > > evolving philosophies, striving to provide such an example. On the rare
> > > occasions they succeed, they lifts humanity to the next level. These people
> > > are few, but when they succeed they render a cataclysmic change to culture,
> > > and rise the benchmark of civilization. ( See Christ )
> > >
> > > most folks seem stuck at level 2.........
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Maybe you're right. I'm just not convinced.
> >
> > Tell us how zen philosophy shaped your groupings.
>
> You could say i am "one who is awake", i won't pretend to tell *you* how to
> think, instead i merely share my thoughts, my intuitive sense of the world.
> I share with you an idea on perception, whether you peel the skins of that
> onion to find that central truth is for you to decide. To weep after all
> is human.
>
> If you hope to see the world as it is, or life as it might be, then first
> you have to see the distortion of culture. Culture is like a lens we wear,
> its man made, it clouds our judgement, shift our focus from; what we are,
> to what we are forced to be.
>
> I can only describe the view, i can't tell you how to get here. Or even if
> the view is worth the journey. You decide. Might this knowledge help you to
> better see yourself? Might it free you from acting as one who is pre-programmed
> by society?
>
> Behaviour Modification.... [ or Science, culture and control ]
>
> What if you came to discover that the strings of popular culture were being
> used as a covert form of 'behaviour modification'. What if you discovered that
> to shape the culture was to shape human behaviour, would you share your truth?
>
> Or would you bask in the philosophy of self reliance, and ignore the future
> course of humanity?
>
> [ btw the groupings for what its worth represent social realities, levels of
> apparent sophistication. Ignorance, as we are told by the culture, is bliss
> and maybe it is, but life is knowledge.]
Culture and Psychology :
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3c6de624.44666142%40news.saix.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dculture%2Band%2BPsychology
mitch
alan jones wrote:
> Yes > Modifying others behaviour is something humans do, But to what end?
If nothing else, it diminishes brow ridges. The brow ridges of all domesticated animals are diminished compared to related species that
have never been domesticated. The brow ridges of humans are diminished compared to the fossils of hominids presumed as ancestors.
:-)
mitch
darth_versive
> The Brain wrote:
> >
> > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C6ACBA5...@freeuk.com...
> >
> > > Behaviour Modification.... [ or Science, culture and control ]
> > >
> > > What if you came to discover that the strings of popular culture were
> > > being used as a covert form of 'behaviour modification'. What if you
> > > discovered that to shape the culture was to shape human behaviour,
> > > would you share your truth?
> >
> > Modifying others behaviour is something humans do. Human behaviour
> > begets human behaviour.
>
> Ok, consider the ramifications when a relative few act via the science of
> Behaviour psychology and through the technology of the mass media, to
> predetermine the behaviour of the many.
>
> Humanity's complexity comes through its diversity. Our apparent complexity
> of thought comes through the variety of influences we are exposed. When
> the media, the culture simplifies what we are exposed to, to a limited sub set
> of possible ideas, then we become creatures of limited determinism, predictable
> manageable types. When the mass media promotes a limited language, then the
> result is understandably limited range of thought.
The "science of Behavior psychology" is at much too primitive a state
right now for people to be able to do what you suggest. Instead, the
"strings of popular culture" are being developed naturally, and then
transmitted through the media as a conduit. But there are so many
strings being developed nowadays that nobody these days can limit it
in such a way as to use it as a "covert form of 'behavior
modification.'"
In other words, the "shaping of culture" is in so many different
hands, and with so many conflicting aims, that there's very little
danger of any single group having any more than a local effect. So I
think your worries are unfounded.
But here and there, in isolated instances, such manipulations of
culture do have significant effects. This is how culture operates.
If you find this disturbing, and worry that as more is known about the
science of behavior psychology, that some groups might be able to
manipulate this process, then I would suggest the answer would be to
learn more about the "science of Behavior psychology" yourself, so as
to be in a better position to counter such manipulations. Because it
might be that the more that others understand this science, and the
more they can develop it, the more they can manipulate culture. And
the less you understand it, and the slower you are to develop it, the
less you can do about this. So it may be that a race to acquire a
better understanding of this science is under way right now. If such
knowledge were to fall into the hands of a limited few, who want to
manipulate culture, rather than the masses of people who don't want to
be manipulated, then there might be a danger of the sort of thing you
mentioned arising in the future.
"Brave New World" may still be a long way off, but if you want to make
sure that it never comes, the best way is to win this race, and put
the knowledge in the hands of the general public. And to start
running now. Because if you fall behind now, it may be too late to
catch up later.
DV
Keynes
wrote:
The best of the practical psychologists are working
on Madison Avenue for the corporations and the
politicians. Focus groups can refine general principles
to a fine point.
Did you know that people prefer to turn to the right
when entering a store, or that certain colors sell better
than others, or that aisle or eye level displays are worth
kickbacks to to the stores?
The whole american society was changed from the
frugal and cautious depression style to the wild and crazy
"just do it" and "get with it" style by the enticements of ads.
Ads don't ever sell the product. They sell the sizzle and
not the steak. Image is everything. You may scoff and
disregard the verbal claims, but you will absorb the images
and their ideas uncritically. They associate this or that
good thing with the product (or candidate) and folks
retain the association. In politics, negative associations
are pretty much the rule, and it's oh so easy to murder
an opponent by even telling the truth in a biased way.
The 80's saw another sea change between the modesty
of wealth to a general "flaunt it" style. And if you couldn't
afford to flaunt it, you could go into debt and buy cheaper
imitation goods that signify power and success. Excess
became the ideal that it is today, and concern for anything
but yourself became out of fashion. Poverty became the
fault of the poor, and wealth became the birthright of the
rich. It's downright immoral these days to pay taxes or
to care about the community. Who said so? The media,
the politicians, and finally most of the whole society.
There is a well financed radio TV media that has been
peddling partisan BS unopposed for decades. There
is no doubt that it has had a great effect not only on
politics and economics, but on the general level of civil
discourse in the USA. It's all slime, all the time now.
alan jones
> state right now for people to be able to do what you suggest.
One could say the motor car is primitive, compared to what it will be
a hundred or two hundred years from now, however that would not
invalidate the technology as it currently exists. The same is true of the
science of Behaviour psychology. This science came into its own when
Pavlov in the 1920's observed the ways in which "a natural urge could
be harnessed to an unnatural cue. Pavlov's so called 'stimuli of the first
order' where to experience one stimuli evokes the other. Pavlov also
documented for the "stimuli of the second order, with weaker and more
complicated conditioning qualities", where "Even the symbolic and
semantic meaning of words can acquire a conditioning quality". You
might still say the science is primitive based on what is widely know of
that science, but that science has come a very long way since those early
experiments which looked to define the limits of the human condition.
I should say at this point, this thread was reactivated as a response to
andy-k's thread on "B. F. Skinner's Operant Conditioning". Even since
Skinner's day a lot has been learnt on the nature of 'conditioning'; the
states that might induce conditioning; the juxtapositions that might take
advantage of that normal learning state; even the means to accelerate the
plastic states of stress that would better enable that mass conditioning.
Just because the general public is not [made] aware on the worst cases,
the "Gleichschaltung" of this 'technology', doesn't prevent its actual use.
Just because a few are aware and mindful of the this technology doesn't
mean it won't pollute the environment we all share.
[Imagine?] Conditioned beings growing with their conditioning, seeing
it as normal and natural. Demanding the same, nay arguing in support
of the same, for their young. Control has many faces.
> Instead, the "strings of popular culture" are being developed naturally,
> and then transmitted through the media as a conduit.
The 'conduit' of the media is populated by people with pressures on
them, the likes of which escapes the comprehension of the wider public.
Manage the relative few in positions of power and the masses they reach
are managed too. Fanciful?
Consider again what I call the 'strings of popular culture'. Selection is
everything. Those looking to contribute to popular culture might be many
and varied, but the outlets that enables their expressions to reach the great
mass of the population are relatively few. When one adds to that the
monopoly and increasing globalisation of media sources; news, movies,
music etc; one soon sees how trusting we are of our sources.
We are products of our experiences, sharing an increasingly global
experience. Packages of psychology, ways to think, streamlined for
the majority taste. I wonder which comes first Taste or Experience?0)
As I've said, Selection Is Everything. When selection is coupled to greed
or the desire to be selected, it increases the likely hood the single persistent
thought and our covert control. With that eye take a look at the dominate
themes of popular culture. The revitalised 'chic' for the fighting metaphor,
now packaged for an ever younger consumer. Just one such example. On
the face of it you might say people make choices on what they consume,
or that the ideas currently favoured represent the choices of the majority.
Yet that point of view is one from within the system [Matrixism?-]. Is it
possible to find a view, a way through reason, which challenges the
horizons we take for granted?
Is it possible to see choice as less expansive than we imagine, curtailed?
Is a selection from a restricted sub set, a true demonstration of free will?
If the only meal to be had were bread and water, wouldn't we still learn
to savour it? Would we not invest that impoverished meal with language
and culture to says bread and water was the breakfast of champions? In
time, the fact that we use to eat 'better' would simply be lost to us.
Or put another way, imagine a meal that necessarily included a dollop
of salt with everything one ate. You might adjust to the taste, to the
point where you no longer noticed it, but you'd be missing the natural
flavours of the meals available to you. In time you might even acquire a
dependence on the taste of salt.
On skinner...
> > Were his policies adopted how would we know? Would we take the
> > direction of the culture, for granted. The themes which persist in the
> > media would be a necessary part of redirecting the culture. With a
> > suitable catalyst, society could be made to look the other way whilst
> > a generation grew to accept their new conditions.
Aj -
darth_versive <darth_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8e0e3045.03041...@posting.google.com...
> "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:<bBbma.79$WY...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> > The Brain wrote:
> > >
> > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C6ACBA5...@freeuk.com...
> > >
> > > > Behaviour Modification.... [ or Science, culture and control ]
> > > >
> > > > What if you came to discover that the strings of popular culture were
> > > > being used as a covert form of 'behaviour modification'. What if you
> > > > discovered that to shape the culture was to shape human behaviour,
> > > > would you share your truth?
> > >
> > > Modifying others behaviour is something humans do. Human behaviour
> > > begets human behaviour.
> >
> > Ok, consider the ramifications when a relative few act via the science of
> > Behaviour psychology and through the technology of the mass media, to
> > predetermine the behaviour of the many.
> >
> > Humanity's complexity comes through its diversity. Our apparent complexity
> > of thought comes through the variety of influences we are exposed. When
> > the media, the culture simplifies what we are exposed to, to a limited sub set
> > of possible ideas, then we become creatures of limited determinism, predictable
> > manageable types. When the mass media promotes a limited language, then the
> > result is understandably limited range of thought.
>
> The "science of Behaviour psychology" is at much too primitive a state
> right now for people to be able to do what you suggest. Instead, the
> "strings of popular culture" are being developed naturally, and then
> transmitted through the media as a conduit. But there are so many
> strings being developed nowadays that nobody these days can limit it
> in such a way as to use it as a "covert form of 'behaviour
> modification.'"
>
> In other words, the "shaping of culture" is in so many different
> hands, and with so many conflicting aims, that there's very little
> danger of any single group having any more than a local effect. So I
> think your worries are unfounded.
>
> But here and there, in isolated instances, such manipulations of
> culture do have significant effects. This is how culture operates.
> If you find this disturbing, and worry that as more is known about the
> science of behaviour psychology, that some groups might be able to
> manipulate this process, then I would suggest the answer would be to
> learn more about the "science of Behaviour psychology" yourself, so as
> to be in a better position to counter such manipulations. Because it
> might be that the more that others understand this science, and the
> more they can develop it, the more they can manipulate culture. And
> the less you understand it, and the slower you are to develop it, the
> less you can do about this. So it may be that a race to acquire a
> better understanding of this science is under way right now. If such
> knowledge were to fall into the hands of a limited few, who want to
> manipulate culture, rather than the masses of people who don't want to
> be manipulated, then there might be a danger of the sort of thing you
> mentioned arising in the future.
>
> "Brave New World" may still be a long way off, but if you want to
> make sure that it never comes, the best way is to win this race, and
> put the knowledge in the hands of the general public. And to start
> running now. Because if you fall behind now, it may be too late to
> catch up later.
>
> DV
>
> alan jones <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:bBbma.79$WY...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > The Brain wrote:
> > >
> > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C6ACBA5...@freeuk.com...
> > >
> > > > Behaviour Modification.... [ or Science, culture and control ]
> > > >
> > > > What if you came to discover that the strings of popular culture were
> > > > being used as a covert form of 'behaviour modification'. What if you
> > > > discovered that to shape the culture was to shape human behaviour,
> > > > would you share your truth?
> > >
> > > Modifying others behaviour is something humans do. Human behaviour
> > > begets human behaviour.
> >
> > Ok, consider the ramifications when a relative few act via the science of
> > Behaviour psychology and through the technology of the mass media, to
> > predetermine the behaviour of the many.
> >
> > Humanity's complexity comes through its diversity. Our apparent complexity
> > of thought comes through the variety of influences we are exposed. When
> > the media, the culture simplifies what we are exposed to, to a limited sub set
> > of possible ideas, then we become creatures of limited determinism, predictable
> > manageable types. When the mass media promotes a limited language, then the
> > result is understandably limited range of thought.
> >
> > Its our many and varied interactions that spawns the variety and complexity
> > of humanity. In a sense humanity is a super organism, where relatively simple
> > creatures of limited determinism contribute, to inform whole with a much
> > greater complexity. Look at the limited imagination of the regimes that look
> > to control the thought of it's populations, and immediately you see the limits
> > of a state sponsored program of Behaviour modification.
> >
> > In that light, consider the effects of the mass media (increasingly a global
> > media), on the lives, psychology and imagination of the whole. Of course
> > its not a new observation, Huxley's "Brave New World" http://www.huxley.net/bnw/
> > was a warning on the future trend of humanity. It was an observation rooted in
> > its times, [on the eve of] the second world war. [Huxley took the ideas that
> > should be based upon display of desired behaviours", "dignity" be damned.
> >
> > According to Skinner "free will" is a myth and illusion...the reason we
> > believe we have "free will" is because that is a set of behaviours which have
> > proven quite effective in maximising individual achievement and individual
> > rewards.
> >
> > Beyond Skinner...
> >
> > Whilst on the face of it, the book was condemned by his contemporaries,
> > I am forced to wonder if the philosophy of this esteemed Behavioural
> > Behaviourism as practice[d]....
> >
> > The public face of Behavioural psychologist talk of promoting 'better'
> > behaviour, when a description of greater accuracy might use the term
> > 'desired' behaviour. The truth is such a system would be driven by the
> > motives of those in charge. As such, 'desired' behaviour could just as easily
> > mean 'better' or 'worst' behaviour. Indeed, Its not too fanciful to imagine
> > schisms in society being engineered, by promoting 'better' behaviour in
> > one group, whilst reinforcing 'worst' behaviour in another group. The
> > schism would occur as each group saw only the differences of behaviour
> > [or privilege], and formed judgements with no idea for the root causes.
> >
> > As for the day to day practice, it would be interesting to consider the numbers
> > of actual behavioural psychologists per head of population, [or even if the
> > system would want their practice known]. Actual punishment and reward
> > would be judged and conducted by lesser folks with a second hand idea,
> > on what it was they were looking for.
> >
> > Imagine 'non professionals' with a kind of production line mentality, judging
> > people as having 'passed' or 'failed' according to a few basic and poorly
> > implemented set of rules. Imagine non professionals with neither the will or
> > the inclination improve the short falls between theory and practice. Confusing
> > general fitness, with actual ability. Judging the appearance and not the
> > circumstance. Simply forcing the system to work.
> >
> > The key to such a scheme would be this goal of 'desired' behaviour. As for
> > any long term aim of greater self determinism, [i.e. away from the 'Autonomous
> > Man'], would not 'Desired' behaviour also, by definition, mean predictable
> > conditioned behaviour? One could argue, such a system would reward ignorance.
> >
> > So what would it mean for unexpected, unpredicted behaviour? Would should
> > a system even recognise that prospect? What of those with an 'unforeseen'
> > sense of the system, would they be accounted for? Or would they be failed,
> > because they failed to knowingly observe the rules?
> >
> > Would society encourage the marveric gene, a trend towards greater self
> > determinism? I wonder.
> >
> > Yes > Modifying others behaviour is something humans do, But to what end?
> >
> >
> > Culture and Psychology :-
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3c6de624.44666142%40news.saix.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dculture%2Band%2BPsychology
> >
> > alan jones wrote:
> > >
> > > The Brain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3C6836D7...@freeuk.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Brain wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3C5ECF6D...@freeuk.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > My point of contention with culture comes, when the roles it
> > > > > > > defines, creates lowered expectation.
> > > > > > > When the strings of Culture are pulled only by a few, the psychology
> > > > > > > it promotes reflects the assignations of those few. When we can't see
> > > > > > > that, and just accept the culture as its presented to us, then their
> > > > > > > psychology becomes ours, and we live our lives bound by their vision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You seem to have a view that there are actual individuals who pull these
> > > > > > strings. You cannot name these people -even if that is not your
> > > > > > intention - because they are more a force of social nature than a group
> > > > > > of individuals with an agenda.
> > > > >
> > > > > You know "The Brain" I am usually mindful of replying to posts where the
> > > > > author has such a short posting history. Particularly when their name
> > > > > suggest an ego, with some alteria motive. Reading you and in spite of the
> > > > > illusion of your appearance I'll respond.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not the reply I was tempted to send you, but a reply to another
> > > > > and rise the benchmark of civilisation. ( See Christ )
> > > > >
> > > > > most folks seem stuck at level 2.........
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you're right. I'm just not convinced.
> > > >
> > > > Tell us how zen philosophy shaped your groupings.
> > >
> > > You could say i am "one who is awake", I won't pretend to tell *you* how to
> > > think, instead I merely share my thoughts, my intuitive sense of the world.
> > > I share with you an idea on perception, whether you peel the skins of that
> > > onion to find that central truth is for you to decide. To weep after all
> > > is human.
> > >
> > > If you hope to see the world as it is, or life as it might be, then first
> > > you have to see the distortion of culture. Culture is like a lens we wear,
> > > its man made, it clouds our judgement, shift our focus from; what we are,
> > > to what we are forced to be.
> > >
> > > I can only describe the view, I can't tell you how to get here. Or even if
> > > the view is worth the journey. You decide. Might this knowledge help you to
> > > better see yourself? Might it free you from acting as one who is pre-programmed
> > > by society?
> > >
> > > Behaviour Modification.... [ or Science, culture and control ]
> > >
> > > What if you came to discover that the strings of popular culture were being
> > > used as a covert form of 'behaviour modification'. What if you discovered that
> > > to shape the culture was to shape human behaviour, would you share your truth?
> > >
darth_versive
<snip>
> The best of the practical psychologists are working
> on Madison Avenue for the corporations and the
> politicians. Focus groups can refine general principles
> to a fine point.
>
> Did you know that people prefer to turn to the right
> when entering a store, or that certain colors sell better
> than others, or that aisle or eye level displays are worth
> kickbacks to to the stores?
>
> The whole american society was changed from the
> frugal and cautious depression style to the wild and crazy
> "just do it" and "get with it" style by the enticements of ads.
Advertising practices are definitely applications of behavioral
psychology. But the wide acceptance of anti-consumerist-mentality
criticisms such as yours within certain segments of modern consumerist
cultures is evidence of what I was saying: that we haven't yet
reached the "Brave New World" stage. The very existence of criticisms
like yours means that there is still time to avoid such a thing, if we
make the effort to learn about these psychological manipulation
techniques. So keep it up, and learn as much as possible about the
kinds of research that advertising is basing its practices on.
DV
darth_versive
> > The "science of Behaviour psychology" is at much too primitive a
> > state right now for people to be able to do what you suggest.
>
> One could say the motor car is primitive, compared to what it will be
> a hundred or two hundred years from now, however that would not
> invalidate the technology as it currently exists. The same is true of the
> science of Behaviour psychology.
<snip>
Yes. What is "primitive" depends on the standards you are using.
> > Instead, the "strings of popular culture" are being developed naturally,
> > and then transmitted through the media as a conduit.
>
> The 'conduit' of the media is populated by people with pressures on
> them, the likes of which escapes the comprehension of the wider public.
> Manage the relative few in positions of power and the masses they reach
> are managed too. Fanciful?
<snip>
Well, in my analysis, there's still a lot of room for the science to
develop, and the control by these groups is very tentative and spotty.
The policy I suggest is that we keep ahead of the potential
manipulators on the "learning curve" in order to prevent a "Brave New
World" scenario developing.
If what you're saying is that we're already in a "Brave New World"
scenario now and just don't realize it, and that the science of
behavioral psychology is already so far advanced that not that much
remains to be learned, then what action do you propose? It would seem
to me that, in that case, it's already too late to do anything. The
game is already lost.
DV
alan jones
<sniped>
> If what you're saying is that we're already in a "Brave New World"
> scenario now and just don't realize it, and that the science of
> behavioral psychology is already so far advanced that not that much
> remains to be learned, then what action do you propose? It would
> seem to me that, in that case, it's already too late to do anything.
> The game is already lost.
>
> DV
Its not the science that concerns me as the daily applications of that science.
What starts as having possible social / military applications, E.G psychological
warfare etc, becomes a ploy used by advertising to squeeze an advantage in
a crowed market. The fact that statistics proves there's an advantage makes it a
seductive social tool, all that's requires is the right circumstance. War and the
social control of war is such an excuse. Eventually the short term expedience
becomes a longer term advantage, as society becomes dependent upon this
crude tool to manage order. Another means of forcing political control, playing
at the edges of democratic values, with forces that work at the level we barely
perceive. No its not the science, persay but its application. The judgement call
by its practitioners, as a science is applied to an unsuspecting population.
We are born blank slates, with the capacity for anything, We grow to be
shaped by the culture, adopting its norms as our own, seeing our selves
as extensions of the culture. Bound by language, defined against the
prevailing culture. I would suggest that control of the culture, by forcing
certain themes to the point of saturation, would have the effect of
controlling a population unaware of that manipulation. It is too easy to
suspend our critique of the culture In times of war.
War in a sense becomes an engine for change and control. This is getting
away from the point I wish to make, all I would say is whilst we remain
loyal and duty bound to the values shared at these times, a generation is
growing without the capacity to be critical of the experience. Seeing the
current extremes as their norm.
So what can we do? I would suggest we see culture as something separate,
necessary but separate. Recognise that what passes for entertainment also
has influence, particularly on those without the means to judge the experience.
Try and understanding the forces we say are natural and instinctual. This
often means we've not understood the rules governing that instinct.
Recognise that one person's ignorance is an advantage to those with
knowledge and that the public face of knowledge and the actuality of that
knowledge will differ. We can't hope to know all there is, but neither should
we assume that all that is known will be a matter of public knowledge. Make
the effort to Understand the trends in taste. Learn to see the knowing 'replay'
of history and culture for the psychology they contain.
What is Science, if it isn't an attempt to understand nature? So consider a
body of knowledge that explores the very basis of who we are. knowledge
which Looks at what influences people, what shapes and controls their
judgement. How could this science be used and by whom? Be weary, the
'application' of this a science depends on an ignorance of so called 'instincts'
to be effective. This science is nothing new, just something transparent to us.
Know yourself.
alan jones <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> alan jones <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:105027474...@despina.uk.clara.net...
> > > The "science of Behaviour psychology" is at much too primitive a
> > > state right now for people to be able to do what you suggest.
> >
> > One could say the motor car is primitive, compared to what it will be
> > a hundred or two hundred years from now, however that would not
> > invalidate the technology as it currently exists. The same is true of the
> > science of Behaviour psychology. This science came into its own when
> > Pavlov in the 1920's observed the ways in which "a natural urge could
> > be harnessed to an unnatural cue. Pavlov's so called 'stimuli of the first
> > order' where to experience one stimuli evokes the other. Pavlov also
> > documented for the "stimuli of the second order, with weaker and more
> > complicated conditioning qualities", where "Even the symbolic and
> > semantic meaning of words can acquire a conditioning quality". You
> > might still say the science is primitive based on what is widely know of
> > that science, but that science has come a very long way since those early
> > experiments which looked to define the limits of the human condition.
> >
> > I should say at this point, this thread was reactivated as a response to
> > andy-k's thread on "B. F. Skinner's Operant Conditioning". Even since
> > Skinner's day a lot has been learnt on the nature of 'conditioning'; the
> > states that might induce conditioning; the juxtapositions that might take
> > advantage of that normal learning state; even the means to accelerate the
> > plastic states of stress that would better enable that mass conditioning.
> >
> > Just because the general public is not [made] aware on the worst cases,
> > the "Gleichschaltung" of this 'technology', doesn't prevent its actual use.
> > Just because a few are aware and mindful of the this technology doesn't
> > mean it won't pollute the environment we all share.
> >
> > [Imagine?] Conditioned beings growing with their conditioning, seeing
> > it as normal and natural. Demanding the same, nay arguing in support
> > of the same, for their young. Control has many faces.
> >
> > > Instead, the "strings of popular culture" are being developed naturally,
> > > and then transmitted through the media as a conduit.
> >
> > The 'conduit' of the media is populated by people with pressures on
> > them, the likes of which escapes the comprehension of the wider public.
> > Manage the relative few in positions of power and the masses they reach
> > are managed too. Fanciful?
> >
> > darth_versive <darth_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8e0e3045.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > The "science of Behaviour psychology" is at much too primitive a state
> > > right now for people to be able to do what you suggest. Instead, the
> > > "strings of popular culture" are being developed naturally, and then
> > > alan jones <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:bBbma.79$WY...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > > > The Brain wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3C6ACBA5...@freeuk.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Behaviour Modification.... [ or Science, culture and control ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3C6836D7...@freeuk.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Brain wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > > apparent sophistication. levels of perception. Ignorance, as we are told by the
darth_versive
> Its not the science that concerns me as the daily applications of that science.
Ok. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the level of the
development of the science isn't the important thing to focus on right
now, but it's the daily applications of that science which should
concern us.
There's still a lack of knowledge about or even awareness of the
applications of this science by the public at large, at any meaningful
level that would allow them to counter the various manipulations to
which they are being subjected. So in your scenario, the public is
already helpless against the forces seeking to control them.
You and a number of others may have a deeper understanding of what's
going on, but if the manipulators control the media (as you've
indicated they do), what good does your understanding of all this
accomplish for them (the public)? They're not listening. They're not
*able* to listen because the information isn't allowed to get to them,
and they're not curious enough to go seek it, lacking the awareness
that such knowledge is out there. So it's a Catch-22, isn't it?
<snip>
> So what can we do? I would suggest we see culture as something separate,
> necessary but separate. Recognise that what passes for entertainment also
> has influence, particularly on those without the means to judge the experience.
> Try and understanding the forces we say are natural and instinctual. This
> often means we've not understood the rules governing that instinct.
Who is *we*? Those who already have knowledge of behavioral
psychology already recognize culture this way, but they are in such a
tiny minority that they don't count against the controlling media (in
your scenario). The general public will never get the message (since
the media won't broadcast it), so they will never change and see
culture this way (in your scenario). What's the answer to this
conundrum?
<snip>
> Know yourself.
This idea has been around for centuries, but is still observed only as
the rare exception rather than the rule. And it's not the message
that the manipulators are broadcasting, so it's not likely to be taken
up by the general public anytime soon (in your scenario).
So what can *realistically* be done, if what you say about behavioral
psychology, culture, and the media are correct? I really can't think
of anything, except maybe hoping that people will suddenly change
their nature and become different from what they have always been.
And I call this type of hope "utopian."
Do you have any answers to this problem?
DV
Keynes
wrote:
Eventually the powerful will overplay their hand
and the masses will finally realize what's what.
It's happened before lots of times.
The foolishness of the masses will finally be exceeded
by the arrogant foolishness of the masters.
alan jones
< snipped >
> You and a number of others may have a deeper understanding of
> what's going on, but if the manipulators control the media (as you've
> indicated they do), what good does your understanding of all this
> accomplish for them (the public)? They're not listening. They're not
> *able* to listen because the information isn't allowed to get to them,
> and they're not curious enough to go seek it, lacking the awareness
> that such knowledge is out there. So it's a Catch-22, isn't it?
The long term answer remains, Education Education Education. One has
to hope that on an individual basis, there are teachers out there, prepared
to introduce the topic of Conditioning to their young charges. IMO there
should already be formal packages to help teachers approach this difficult
subject. I first heard of Conditioning, not in a formal lesson but as part of
one-off morning assembly lecture. Much later in collage, the topic of
Pavlov and his infamous research was a small element in a course, which
was other wise concerned with Art history.
'Media Study' ought to be an opportunity to introduce this appreciation
of the media, but with a fixed, government sanctioned curriculum having
priority, one has to wonder if ignorance on these issues isn't also being
enforced. The key thing to appreciate, is that, those conditioned in their
youth, wont even realise it when the appropriate 'triggers' force their
compliant response in later life. Without education and the model / mirror
of knowledge to apply to one's own circumstance, control might as will
be total. Without these applicable labels, these shared and understood
definitions, our sense for our circumstance are just individual feelings,
unresolved because it exist without language.
In the immediate term, forums like this may help those with natural thirst
for knowledge, seek answers on our inexplicable new state. I'm sure there
are other ways to the information, but the key is having knowledge on the
handful of key words that might enable a wider search for information.
In the 70's there was the much used label 'crypto fascist, which looking
back on the programs of that time, was used as a label for the hidden
covert media manipulation. I guess the teens back then were sensitised to
this aspect of the media, by the politics of those times. In the mean time,
in our time there's a handful of movies and programs that hint at the nature
of this control. Even so most programs are obliged to obeying the dictates
of culture, saying one thing to say another. The Matrix is a classic example.
Beyond the formal lessons, an idea for the forces that exist on any figure
in the public eye, might also help. Sometimes its difficult to appreciate the
element of self censorship and its part in stifling truth.
It use to be that we could point to the single party regimes around the
world and use their excessive control as a model for our education, but
where do we look, now that Pravda, is no longer the but of western jokes.
We need the constant reminders. We can't see tomorrow's leaders, we
can only wonder as today's culture prepares the minds of their electorate.
As the saying goes, history forgotten is history destined to repeat itself.
Here's a link to something forgotten, a useful read. How long it remains
there one can only guess. I may post an extract at a later date to try and
generate a few thoughts. http://www.ninehundred.net/control/index.html
> > Know yourself.
>
> This idea has been around for centuries, but is still observed only as
> the rare exception rather than the rule. And it's not the message
> that the manipulators are broadcasting, so it's not likely to be taken
> up by the general public anytime soon (in your scenario).
< sniped >
If today's culture where to follow the model of yesteryear, then right
now there would be the spiritual element to help resurrect this necessary
introspection. For example the Beatles in the mid 60's made this part of
the popular culture. Call it an alternate form for belief. In the 80's the old
face of religion meet the hungry face of corporate business to create an
hybrid which, all but, ridiculed religion as a force for personal fulfilment
(In the states;). Where do we look now, to satisfy our inner peace?
There will always be the formal religions, but their virtual silence in times
of greatest need, only serves to foster a contempt by today's youth. Maybe
that's part of the reason for religion's decline, its apparent silence when it
matters most. Is there a sense that silence on certain issues equate to
support? On a completely different tact, I wonder could philosophy be the
new religion? Filling the spiritual vacuum? Its an idea, but then one sees the
various old forms, with their old and antiquated psychology packages.
With the increasing sophistication of media and its ablity to sell ideas, who
questions our current relationship with the media and culture?
Aj
> DV
> alan jones <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:5Nyma.322$Ax5.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > darth_versive <darth_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8e0e3045.03041...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <sniped>
> >
> > > If what you're saying is that we're already in a "Brave New World"
> > > scenario now and just don't realize it, and that the science of
> > > behavioral psychology is already so far advanced that not that much
> > > remains to be learned, then what action do you propose? It would
> > > seem to me that, in that case, it's already too late to do anything.
> > > The game is already lost.
> > >
> > > DV
> >
> > Its not the science that concerns me as the daily applications of that science.
> > What starts as having possible social / military applications, E.G psychological
> > warfare etc, becomes a ploy used by advertising to squeeze an advantage in
> > a crowed market. The fact that statistics proves there's an advantage makes it a
> > seductive social tool, all that's requires is the right circumstance. War and the
> > social control of war is such an excuse. Eventually the short term expedience
> > becomes a longer term advantage, as society becomes dependent upon this
> > crude tool to manage order. Another means of forcing political control, playing
> > at the edges of democratic values, with forces that work at the level we barely
> > perceive. No its not the science, persay but its application. The judgement call
> > by its practitioners, as a science is applied to an unsuspecting population.
> >
> > We are born blank slates, with the capacity for anything, We grow to be
> > shaped by the culture, adopting its norms as our own, seeing our selves
> > as extensions of the culture. Bound by language, defined against the
> > prevailing culture. I would suggest that control of the culture, by forcing
> > certain themes to the point of saturation, would have the effect of
> > controlling a population unaware of that manipulation. It is too easy to
> > suspend our critique of the culture In times of war.
> >
> > War in a sense becomes an engine for change and control. This is getting
> > away from the point I wish to make, all I would say is whilst we remain
> > loyal and duty bound to the values shared at these times, a generation is
> > growing without the capacity to be critical of the experience. Seeing the
> > current extremes as their norm.
> >
> > So what can we do? I would suggest we see culture as something separate,
> > necessary but separate. Recognise that what passes for entertainment also
> > has influence, particularly on those without the means to judge the experience.
> > Try and understanding the forces we say are natural and instinctual. This
> > often means we've not understood the rules governing that instinct.
> >
> > Recognise that one person's ignorance is an advantage to those with
> > knowledge and that the public face of knowledge and the actuality of that
> > knowledge will differ. We can't hope to know all there is, but neither should
> > we assume that all that is known will be a matter of public knowledge. Make
> > the effort to Understand the trends in taste. Learn to see the knowing 'replay'
> > of history and culture for the psychology they contain.
> >
> > What is Science, if it isn't an attempt to understand nature? So consider a
> > body of knowledge that explores the very basis of who we are. knowledge
> > which Looks at what influences people, what shapes and controls their
> > judgement. How could this science be used and by whom? Be weary, the
> > 'application' of this a science depends on an ignorance of so called 'instincts'
> > to be effective. This science is nothing new, just something transparent to us.
> >
> > Know yourself.
> >
> > Aj
> > > > > alan jones <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:bBbma.79$WY...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > > > > > The Brain wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > alan jones wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Brain wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:3C6836D7...@freeuk.com...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Brain wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
darth_versive
Note that this is alan jones' scenrio, not mine. But that said, in
such a scenario, the powerful can't be counted on to overplay their
hand in our lifetimes. They *might* do this, but it can't be counted
on. And there's no evidence that it's going to happen anytime soon.
And, moreover, whatever happens is in *their* hands, not ours (that
is, we just have to passively wait for them to make a mistake, and we
can take no effective action on our own initiative). And in a few
generations (if it takes that long), even if they *do* overplay their
hand, that will just open the road to a *new* powerful group of
manipulators to take their place and do the same thing. So our
descendents will merely exchange masters, one for another.
No doubt, as you say, "the foolishness of the masses will finally be
exceeded by the arrogant foolishness of the masters," sooner or later.
But since the "foolishness of the masses" seems to be a constant (in
his scenario), and since any new group of masters will have to start
off its rule being very careful, and will only very gradually develop
their own "arrogant foolishness" after a long period of mastery, that
means the the masses will, for the great majority of the time in the
future, be subject to one master or another.
Hence, in his scenario, I don't see anything ahead but long periods of
control and manipulation of the masses, interspersed by only brief
periods of freedom.
Not a very pleasant scenario, in my view.
DV
Chad L
What you say is easy to imagine since every known "being" in existence is a
conditioned being that grows with its conditioning. Most of these beings
see such conditioning as normal and natural, and demand the same for their
young. The technology of this conditioning and the understanding of how it
works is not the danger to our world. The danger to our world is a lack of
this technology and knowledge. Our technology in other areas has far
surpassed our behavioral technology and knowledge -- thus we have not
learned to control ourselves. This world is like a drunken 14 yr. old
behind the wheel of a Ferrari. If we do not learn to drive, we will not
survive. And there is apparnently no parental figure to take our Ferrari
away, so we're currently headed fast for a brick wall.
cl
Chad L
"Chad L" <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b7k88n$7u0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
After I re-read that, I see that an addendum may be in order:
Not only is every being in existence a conditioned being that grows with
its conditioning, but *every being that ever was AND every being that ever
will be -- was, is, and will be conditioned beings that grow with their
conditioning* -- and whether we have the technology to comprehend and apply
the abstracted principles of that conditioning or not will hardly matter in
the grand scheme of things. We are as we are -- whether we know it or
not.
Humans are not and will never be outside, above, or beyond the laws of
nature. They will always take the path of least resistance available to
them and obtain the most gain available -- no matter what is learned, no
matter what is applied, no matter what is "controlled". (which btw. , note
that "control" is never a one-way imposition, rather it is always a two-way
interaction).
I fully contend that those who have a deep understanding of how such
knowledge is applied are the very last people that would seek or cause the
world to become more "polluted". Such people are the very first to 'clear'
the pollution of overly-coercive practices that keep the world in a
stagnant, declining state of self-destruction. Man is not inherently flawed
you know -- original sin is a myth that should have been buried long ago,
but keeps haunting new generations in different mystical guises.
As Daniel Quinn said, 'when people started making reliable airplanes they
studied and applied the science of physics and aerodynamics, they didn't
just make-up shallow explanations of flight that sounded reasonable, or if
they did, they didn't live long after gravity had its way... well, if people
want to start making reliable civilizations, they must study and apply the
science of behavior, look where our common explanations and handed down
sense has gotten us so far -- gravity has us in its clutches.'
cl
alan jones
> no parental figure to take our Ferrari away, so we're currently headed
> fast for a brick wall.
Man, immature, fragile, being driven by his technological advances. High
on the thrill of progress. He wears his conditioning like dark glasses. Made
after a fashion, so he doesn't see where he's been, or where he's heading.
There is no time to survey the landscape of history. He wears this form of
language to be cool, to be seen as cool. Shielding himself from life, from
himself
[How applicable is this model anyway and yet language is needed.
Something understood that might serve to connect our thoughts.]
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b7k88n$7u0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
alan jones
>
> Not only is every being in existence a conditioned being that grows with
> its conditioning, but *every being that ever was AND every being that
> ever will be -- was, is, and will be conditioned beings that grow with their
> conditioning* -- and whether we have the technology to comprehend and
> apply the abstracted principles of that conditioning or not will hardly
> matter in the grand scheme of things. We are as we are -- whether we
> know it or not.
Your generalisation would seem to dismiss man, as just another being, subjected
to the nature's laws, but we are thinking, feeling, reasoning creatures, making
decisions based on our understandings of our environment. If the information
on which those decisions are made, are squewed by factors beyond our
comprehension, then I would suggest it does matter in the grand scheme of
things. It matters when there are fewer to conceive the alternatives.
> Humans are not and will never be outside, above, or beyond the laws of
> nature. They will always take the path of least resistance available to
> them and obtain the most gain available -- no matter what is learned, no
> matter what is applied, no matter what is "controlled". (which btw. , note
> that "control" is never a one-way imposition, rather it is always a two-way
> interaction).
If man lived as long as the effects he sets into motion, we could make a case
for responsible control. Unfortunately the visible connection between 'cause'
and 'effect' are soon lost to us. What happens when the control is not
accountable and there exist no record for the nature of control set into being.
(btw the two-way interaction is only interactive if the controlled knows it is
controlled).
We live with culture, created and then persisting often beyond any
understanding of it origins or circumstance. So where might this covert form
take us? We are talking about psychology, persisting like language and
passed on in the same fashion. Imagine the attitude of forced conditioning
becoming a new language, something practised in an attempt to exact
control. Language has us speaking as we are spoken to, so what of this
covert form of communication. Each taking it upon himself to command
attention. Not speaking to, or with, but at.
Neighbour bewitched by neighbour?-)
Yes, to talk of controlled controllers controlling, or conditioned beings,
conditioning their young who grows to demand the same, does have the
ring of a truism, but that truism is presented against a consideration of the
worst case. For me, to not make plain, the recursive nature of that loop
would assume the point was already known and understood. You talk
about the laws of nature, as I talk about the exploitation, of the laws
of nature. Where the natural is merged into the unnatural and the Doer is
changed to match the deed. Maybe it suits your conditioning, to dismiss
the implications ;)
The technology to split the atom, didn't just provide a source of energy, it
made possible a new form of mass destruction. This technology not only
changes us, it changes how we relate. Controlled controllers controlling.
There is an aspect of conditioning that has us sharing what is consider of
mutual benefit. Is that always true of the media? Asked about the levels of
crime and violence in society, the media continue to say there is no
connection to the media? Would this other thing become another aspect
of the media, to also be dismissed?
On a 'One to one' basis we are like ants, meeting and exchanging
knowledge, sharing behaviour. The one to many relationship is something
new, a dramatic change from nature. Made worst when you consider
information purposely designed to exploit the ways in which we absorbed
ideas. Unaccountable Influences, circumventing democratic values. Turning
on its head, what it means to understand. Humanity as product, made to love
it like that.
> I fully contend that those who have a deep understanding of how such
> knowledge is applied are the very last people that would seek or cause
> the world to become more "polluted". Such people are the very first to
> 'clear' the pollution of overly-coercive practices that keep the world in
> a stagnant, declining state of self-destruction.
The new gods, in whom we trust. Men like us, shaped by the same forces
that shape us all, Gods who will be born from amongst us. Gods, working
with the effects of the gods who went before them. Gods controlling what
we see, of the world, and of ourselves. In this moment, at this time, we catch
sight of man, taking a single step, in a journey that takes us towards absolute
control. You see the deamon he keeps on a leash to better control you.
I don't argue for the absence of control, But wonder what kind of control
we are embarked upon, control through understanding or control through
ignorance?
In another time, aspects of the culture were able to warn of subliminal control,
in this time we just accept. The self that might show concerned has been
replaced by the self that doesn't question. And so it goes.
There's a further thought on the dominate thought and imagination....
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b7ljt6$5jo$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "Chad L" <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:b7k88n$7u0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > news:105027474...@despina.uk.clara.net...
> > > > The "science of Behaviour psychology" is at much too primitive
> > > > a state right now for people to be able to do what you suggest.
> > >
> > > One could say the motor car is primitive, compared to what it will
> > > be a hundred or two hundred years from now, however that would
> > > not invalidate the technology as it currently exists. The same is true
> > > of the science of Behaviour psychology. This science came into its
> > > own when Pavlov in the late nineteenth centurary observed the ways
> > > in which "a natural urge could be harnessed to an unnatural cue.
> > > Pavlov's so called 'stimuli of the first order' where to experience one
> > > stimuli evokes the other. Pavlov also documented what he called the
> > > "stimuli of the second order, with weaker and more complicated
> > > conditioning qualities", where "Even the symbolic and semantic
> > > meaning of words can acquire a conditioning quality". You might
> > > still say the science is primitive based on what is widely know of
> > > that science, but that science has come a very long way since those
> > > early experiments which looked to define the limits of the human
> > > condition.
> > >
> > > I should say at this point, this thread was reactivated as a response
> > > to andy-k's thread on "B. F. Skinner's Operant Conditioning". Even
> > > since Skinner's day a lot has been learnt on the nature of 'conditioning';
> > > the states that might induce conditioning; the juxtapositions that might
> > > take advantage of that normal learning state; even the chemical means
> > > to amplify the plastic states of stress that would better enable that mass
alan jones
> > > state right now for people to be able to do what you suggest.
>
> knowledge -- thus we have not learned to control ourselves.
I see a lot of truth in your statement, even as I acknowledge the divisive use
that is made, and will be made, of this technology. Yes, to understand the
nature of conditioning is to have greater control of self, to move a step
closer to free will, a step closer to greater self determinism, a step closer
to seeing our selves, from the influences that shape us. To have us say, I
see, or I understand, instead of the other thing?
And yet this is not the kind of knowledge that will be democratised. Its
an advantage that will be used to control rather than educate people. An
advantage exploiting the ignorance of the great majority.
The real dangers is in having this knowledge as a toy in the hands of a
select group. The danger is having that select group as the focus for the
great mass of humanity, directing behaviour as one might direct traffic.
With any technology, there will be the best case and the worst. The worst
waiting for the worst of man's nature. Which are we conditioned to see?
Its a situation I've noted before, knowledge that can either liberate the
individual or emasculate the group. And yet the liberated individual daren't
ignore the emasculated group, least he lose himself amounts them.
Here's a link to something forgotten, a useful read:
THE RAPE OF THE MIND: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide,
and Brainwashing, by Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D., Instructor in Psychiatry,
Columbia University Lecturer in Social Psychology, New School for Social
Research, Former Chief, Psychological Department, Netherlands Forces,
published in 1956, World Publishing Company. (Out of Print)
http://www.ninehundred.net/control/index.html
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b7k88n$7u0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:105027474...@despina.uk.clara.net...
> > > The "science of Behaviour psychology" is at much too primitive a
> > > state right now for people to be able to do what you suggest.
> >
> > One could say the motor car is primitive, compared to what it will be
> > a hundred or two hundred years from now, however that would not
> > invalidate the technology as it currently exists. The same is true of the
> > science of Behaviour psychology. This science came into its own when
> > Pavlov in the 1920's observed the ways in which "a natural urge could
> > be harnessed to an unnatural cue. Pavlov's so called 'stimuli of the first
> > order' where to experience one stimuli evokes the other. Pavlov also
> > documented what he called the "stimuli of the second order, with
> > weaker and more complicated conditioning qualities", where "Even the
> > symbolic and semantic meaning of words can acquire a conditioning
> > quality". You might still say the science is primitive based on what is
> > widely know of that science, but that science has come a very long way
> > since those early experiments which looked to define the limits of the
> > human condition.
> >
> > I should say at this point, this thread was reactivated as a response to
> > andy-k's thread on "B. F. Skinner's Operant Conditioning". Even since
> > Skinner's day a lot has been learnt on the nature of 'conditioning'; the
> > states that might induce conditioning; the juxtapositions that might take
> > advantage of that normal learning state; even the [chemical] means to
> > amplify the plastic states of stress that would better enable that mass
> > conditioning.
> >
> > Just because the general public is not [made] aware on the worst cases,
> > the "Gleichschaltung" of this 'technology', doesn't prevent its actual
> > use. Just because a few are aware and mindful of the this technology
> > doesn't mean it won't pollute the environment we all share.
> >
> > [Imagine?] Conditioned beings growing with their conditioning, seeing
> > it as normal and natural. Demanding the same, nay arguing in support
> > of the same, for their young. Control has many faces.
>
> What you say is easy to imagine since every known "being" in existence
> is a conditioned being that grows with its conditioning. Most of these
> beings see such conditioning as normal and natural, and demand the same
> for their young. The technology of this conditioning and the understanding
> of how it works is not the danger to our world. The danger to our world
> is a lack of this technology and knowledge. Our technology in other areas
> has far surpassed our behavioural technology and knowledge -- thus we
> have not learned to control ourselves. This world is like a drunken 14 yr.
> old behind the wheel of a Ferrari. If we do not learn to drive, we will not
> survive. And there is apparently no parental figure to take our Ferrari
alan jones
< snipped >
> You and a number of others may have a deeper understanding of
> what's going on, but if the manipulators control the media (as you've
> indicated they do), what good does your understanding of all this
> accomplish for them (the public)? They're not listening. They're not
> *able* to listen because the information isn't allowed to get to them,
> and they're not curious enough to go seek it, lacking the awareness
> that such knowledge is out there. So it's a Catch-22, isn't it?
The long term answer remains, Education Education Education. One has
> > Know yourself.
>
> This idea has been around for centuries, but is still observed only as
> the rare exception rather than the rule. And it's not the message
> that the manipulators are broadcasting, so it's not likely to be taken
> up by the general public anytime soon (in your scenario).
< sniped >
If today's culture where to follow the model of yesteryear, then right
now there would be the spiritual element to help resurrect this necessary
introspection. For example the Beatles in the mid 60's made this part of
the popular culture. Call it an alternate form for belief. In the 80's the old
face of religion meet the hungry face of corporate business to create an
hybrid which, all but, ridiculed religion as a force for personal fulfilment
(In the states;). Where do we look now, to satisfy our inner peace?
There will always be the formal religions, but their virtual silence in times
of greatest need, only serves to foster a contempt by today's youth. Maybe
that's part of the reason for religion's decline, its apparent silence when it
matters most. Is there a sense that silence on certain issues equate to
support? On a completely different tact, I wonder could philosophy be the
new religion? Filling the spiritual vacuum? Its an idea, but then one sees the
various old forms, with their old and antiquated psychology packages.
With the increasing sophistication of media and its ability to sell ideas, who
questions our current relationship with the media and culture?
Aj
> DV
> alan jones <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:5Nyma.322$Ax5.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > darth_versive <darth_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8e0e3045.03041...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <sniped>
> >
> > > If what you're saying is that we're already in a "Brave New World"
> > > scenario now and just don't realize it, and that the science of
> > > behavioral psychology is already so far advanced that not that much
> > > remains to be learned, then what action do you propose? It would
> > > seem to me that, in that case, it's already too late to do anything.
> > > The game is already lost.
> > >
> > > DV
> >
> > Its not the science that concerns me as the daily applications of that science.
> > What starts as having possible social / military applications, E.G psychological
> > warfare etc, becomes a ploy used by advertising to squeeze an advantage in
> > a crowed market. The fact that statistics proves there's an advantage makes it a
> > seductive social tool, all that's requires is the right circumstance. War and the
> > social control of war is such an excuse. Eventually the short term expedience
> > becomes a longer term advantage, as society becomes dependent upon this
> > crude tool to manage order. Another means of forcing political control, playing
> > at the edges of democratic values, with forces that work at the level we barely
> > perceive. No its not the science, persay but its application. The judgement call
> > by its practitioners, as a science is applied to an unsuspecting population.
> >
> > We are born blank slates, with the capacity for anything, We grow to be
> > shaped by the culture, adopting its norms as our own, seeing our selves
> > as extensions of the culture. Bound by language, defined against the
> > prevailing culture. I would suggest that control of the culture, by forcing
> > certain themes to the point of saturation, would have the effect of
> > controlling a population unaware of that manipulation. It is too easy to
> > suspend our critique of the culture In times of war.
> >
> > War in a sense becomes an engine for change and control. This is getting
> > away from the point I wish to make, all I would say is whilst we remain
> > loyal and duty bound to the values shared at these times, a generation is
> > growing without the capacity to be critical of the experience. Seeing the
> > current extremes as their norm.
> >
> > So what can we do? I would suggest we see culture as something separate,
> > necessary but separate. Recognise that what passes for entertainment also
> > has influence, particularly on those without the means to judge the experience.
> > Try and understanding the forces we say are natural and instinctual. This
> > often means we've not understood the rules governing that instinct.
> >
> > Recognise that one person's ignorance is an advantage to those with
> > knowledge and that the public face of knowledge and the actuality of that
> > knowledge will differ. We can't hope to know all there is, but neither should
> > we assume that all that is known will be a matter of public knowledge. Make
> > the effort to Understand the trends in taste. Learn to see the knowing 'replay'
> > of history and culture for the psychology they contain.
> >
> > What is Science, if it isn't an attempt to understand nature? So consider a
> > body of knowledge that explores the very basis of who we are. knowledge
> > which Looks at what influences people, what shapes and controls their
> > judgement. How could this science be used and by whom? Be weary, the
> > 'application' of this a science depends on an ignorance of so called 'instincts'
> > to be effective. This science is nothing new, just something transparent to us.
> >
> > Know yourself.
> >
> > Aj
> > > > > alan jones <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:bBbma.79$WY...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > > > > > The Brain wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > alan jones wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Brain wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:3C6836D7...@freeuk.com...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Brain wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
Chad L
> > After I re-read that, I see that an addendum may be in order:
> >
> > Not only is every being in existence a conditioned being that grows with
> > its conditioning, but *every being that ever was AND every being that
> > ever will be -- was, is, and will be conditioned beings that grow with
their
> > conditioning* -- and whether we have the technology to comprehend and
> > apply the abstracted principles of that conditioning or not will hardly
> > matter in the grand scheme of things. We are as we are -- whether we
> > know it or not.
>
> Your generalisation would seem to dismiss man, as just another being,
correct. man is just another being. however, all beings are different
(just like every other being). Man's differences lie in his different
functions.
subjected
> to the nature's laws, but we are thinking, feeling, reasoning creatures,
making
> decisions based on our understandings of our environment.
alllllll of which is subsumed under the laws of nature. you cannot escape
that of which you are.
If the information
> on which those decisions are made, are squewed by factors beyond our
> comprehension, then I would suggest it does matter in the grand scheme of
> things. It matters when there are fewer to conceive the alternatives.
>
> > Humans are not and will never be outside, above, or beyond the laws of
> > nature. They will always take the path of least resistance available to
> > them and obtain the most gain available -- no matter what is learned, no
> > matter what is applied, no matter what is "controlled". (which btw. ,
note
> > that "control" is never a one-way imposition, rather it is always a
two-way
> > interaction).
>
> If man lived as long as the effects he sets into motion, we could make a
case
> for responsible control. Unfortunately the visible connection between
'cause'
> and 'effect' are soon lost to us. What happens when the control is not
> accountable and there exist no record for the nature of control set into
being.
> (btw the two-way interaction is only interactive if the controlled knows
it is
> controlled).
"knowledge" is not a necessary component in the interaction known as
"control". No sir, if you own a gold fish, and that gold fish is kept alive
by your actions, your goldfish controls you just as much as you control it.
Most would not say that your goldfish "knows" anything. (However, I'm
inclined to take Dennet's instumentalist stance). But that is just one
example. Furthermore, "responsible" control may only boil down to efficient
control. The more one studies behavior, the more one realizes that what has
worked for the past thousands of years, is not necessarily the most
efficient working model (even though it works). Our models are outdated.
At any rate, inductively speaking, the connection between cause and effect
need not be observed (as Hume has made light of), rather what is necessary
is what is known as "functional relationships". Functional relationships
are simple inductive descriptions of events, and may be trusted as far as
inductive science may be trusted. Certainly the laws of the universe may
not hold tomorrow, but they've held forever to our knowledge and there is no
reason to assume that they won't hold till the end of time.
>
> We live with culture, created and then persisting often beyond any
> understanding of it origins or circumstance. So where might this covert
form
> take us? We are talking about psychology, persisting like language and
> passed on in the same fashion. Imagine the attitude of forced conditioning
> becoming a new language, something practised in an attempt to exact
> control. Language has us speaking as we are spoken to, so what of this
> covert form of communication. Each taking it upon himself to command
> attention. Not speaking to, or with, but at.
this is how it is done anyway, whether you realize it or not. The idea of
information and free-will is a romanticized Quixote-like illusion. This is
not to deny the mystery of the quality of our feelings and emotions, yet in
the same stroke it is to deny the culdesac of dualistic terminology embedded
in the language that we both use, yet use in different manners.
>
> Neighbour bewitched by neighbour?-)
>
> Yes, to talk of controlled controllers controlling, or conditioned beings,
> conditioning their young who grows to demand the same, does have the
> ring of a truism, but that truism is presented against a consideration of
the
> worst case. For me, to not make plain, the recursive nature of that loop
> would assume the point was already known and understood. You talk
> about the laws of nature, as I talk about the exploitation, of the laws
> of nature. Where the natural is merged into the unnatural and the Doer is
> changed to match the deed. Maybe it suits your conditioning, to dismiss
> the implications ;)
On some occasions I have attempted to explore what "natural" amounts too.
It seems apparent to me that there is no such thing as "unnatural" (at the
10,000 foot level).
Aside from that personal philosophical opinion of mine though, I do not
dismiss the possibility of some sociopath freak in a position of power
gaining the knowledge of behavior and using it to the greater destruction of
his fellow man. This was once my concern, until, like chess, I thought it
forward a few more moves. This worst case scenario is highly unlikely given
our current environment.
> The technology to split the atom, didn't just provide a source of energy,
it
> made possible a new form of mass destruction. This technology not only
> changes us, it changes how we relate. Controlled controllers controlling.
I like that: CCC
>
> There is an aspect of conditioning that has us sharing what is consider of
> mutual benefit. Is that always true of the media? Asked about the levels
of
> crime and violence in society, the media continue to say there is no
> connection to the media? Would this other thing become another aspect
> of the media, to also be dismissed?
>
> On a 'One to one' basis we are like ants, meeting and exchanging
> knowledge, sharing behaviour. The one to many relationship is something
> new, a dramatic change from nature. Made worst when you consider
> information purposely designed to exploit the ways in which we absorbed
> ideas. Unaccountable Influences, circumventing democratic values. Turning
> on its head, what it means to understand. Humanity as product, made to
love
> it like that.
As it should. To "understand" means what? (again I take the instrumenalist
point of view if you wonder where my opinion lies in this area).
>
> > I fully contend that those who have a deep understanding of how such
> > knowledge is applied are the very last people that would seek or cause
> > the world to become more "polluted". Such people are the very first to
> > 'clear' the pollution of overly-coercive practices that keep the world
in
> > a stagnant, declining state of self-destruction.
>
> The new gods, in whom we trust. Men like us, shaped by the same forces
> that shape us all, Gods who will be born from amongst us. Gods, working
> with the effects of the gods who went before them. Gods controlling what
> we see, of the world, and of ourselves. In this moment, at this time, we
catch
> sight of man, taking a single step, in a journey that takes us towards
absolute
> control. You see the deamon he keeps on a leash to better control you.
you speak of control as if it were mostly coercive -- not unusual -- as
folks often associate the word control with coercion. A huge problem in
the world is that though teachers, parents, and politicians see the need for
control, they think it is mainly a word that must be applied in a coercive
sense. Wrong. control is much more. you and the rest mentioned focus
much too much on the dark-side young sky-walkers ;)
(gods!?! hahaha. myyy arse)
>
> I don't argue for the absence of control, But wonder what kind of control
> we are embarked upon, control through understanding or control through
> ignorance?
>
> In another time, aspects of the culture were able to warn of subliminal
control,
> in this time we just accept. The self that might show concerned has been
> replaced by the self that doesn't question. And so it goes.
hhhm, great point. and why does the self no longer question?????? come up
with that answer, and answer it well, and I'll invite you to a party some
years in the future.
cl
nice talking with you
Chad L
what exactly is the difference between education and control? :)
cl
"alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:105062043...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
alan jones
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b7nv27$aue$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> dear alan,
>
> what exactly is the difference between education and control? :)
>
> cl
Well as it relates to man, I would say its the difference between an
opened mind and a closed one. Or put another way, the difference
between a man taught to fish, and the other thing.... [ a fish enticed
by an appetising bait?-]
( Recalling the direction you took the thread "What is Belief?",
you'll find replies to your other post under the renamed heading
"OT [was Culture and Psychology]" )
> "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:105062043...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> > > > > The "science of Behaviour psychology" is at much too primitive a
> > > > > state right now for people to be able to do what you suggest.
> > >
> > > The danger to our world is a lack of this technology and knowledge. Our
> > > technology in other areas has far surpassed our behavioural technology
> > > and knowledge -- thus we have not learned to control ourselves.
> >
> > I see a lot of truth in your statement, even as I acknowledge the divisive
> > use that is made, and will be made, of this technology. Yes, to understand
> > the nature of conditioning is to have greater control of self, to move a step
> > closer to free will, a step closer to greater self determinism, a step
> > closer to seeing our selves, from the influences that shape us. To have us
> > say, I see, or I understand, instead of the other thing.
> >
> > And yet this is not the kind of knowledge that will be democratised. Its
> > an advantage that will be used to control rather than educate people. An
> > advantage exploiting the ignorance of the great majority.
> >
> > The real dangers is in having this knowledge as a toy in the hands of a
> > select group. The danger is having that select group as the focus for the
> > great mass of humanity, directing behaviour as one might direct traffic.
> > With any technology, there will be the best case and the worst. The worst
> > waiting for the worst of man's nature. Which are we conditioned to see?
> >
> > Its a situation I've noted before, knowledge that can either liberate the
> > individual or emasculate the group. And yet the liberated individual
> > daren't ignore the emasculated group, least he lose himself amounts
> > them.
> >
> > Here's a link to something forgotten, a useful read:
> >
> > THE RAPE OF THE MIND: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide,
> > and Brainwashing, by Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D., Instructor in Psychiatry,
> > Columbia University Lecturer in Social Psychology, New School for Social
> > Research, Former Chief, Psychological Department, Netherlands Forces,
> > published in 1956, World Publishing Company. (Out of Print)
> > http://www.ninehundred.net/control/index.html
> >
> > [ the late 50's a very eventful time for the culture ]
Chad L
>
> Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b7nv27$aue$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > dear alan,
> >
> > what exactly is the difference between education and control? :)
> >
> > cl
>
> Well as it relates to man, I would say its the difference between an
> opened mind and a closed one. Or put another way, the difference
> between a man taught to fish, and the other thing.... [ a fish enticed
> by an appetising bait?-]
I've come to believe that an "open mind" is just as much under control as a
"closed mind". The difference is that the open mind is under the control of
stimuli different from the stimuli that the closed mind is under the control
of. A man who has learned to fish, is under the control of various stimuli
that allow him to obtain fish (assuming he continues to fish).
This may seem counterintuitive -- but the more a man learns, the more he is
controlled (and the more he controls).
cl
>
> ( Recalling the direction you took the thread "What is Belief?",
I don't recall.
alan jones
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b7s7av$vdb$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:STeoa.1282$8Y1...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:b7nv27$aue$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > dear alan,
> > >
> > > what exactly is the difference between education and control? :)
> > >
> > > cl
> >
> > Well as it relates to man, I would say its the difference between an
> > opened mind and a closed one. Or put another way, the difference
> > between a man taught to fish, and the other thing.... [ a fish enticed
> > by an appetising bait?-]
>
> I've come to believe that an "open mind" is just as much under control
> as a "closed mind". The difference is that the open mind is under the
> control of stimuli different from the stimuli that the closed mind is under
> the control of. A man who has learned to fish, is under the control of
> various stimuli that allow him to obtain fish (assuming he continues to
> fish).
The illusion to fishing [an extension of your earlier goldfish story] was
meant to illustrate education, Ie teaching a man to find and explore his
own knowledge, whilst 'the other', simply presents a man with bodies
of information. The latter i would suggest tends towards control.
Btw way i see a difference between 'influence' and 'control'?
That said control as a point of discussion 'Control' is too open, to
have one person presume the nature of control being discussed. My
specific points earlier were on coersive control, acknowledging that
a level of control is necessary, but seeing coersive control as a
culdesac that threatens the very meaning of understanding.
> This may seem counterintuitive -- but the more a man learns, the
> more he is controlled (and the more he controls).
Your right it does seem counterintuitive. If a man learnt nothing, not
even language, would he have greater control? Does a creature existing
just of instincts have greater control than a creature with a tendency
towards reason?
>
> cl
>
>
> >
> > ( Recalling the direction you took the thread "What is Belief?",
> > you'll find replies to your other post under the renamed heading
> > "OT [was Culture and Psychology]" )
> I don't recall.
Chad L
>
> Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b7s7av$vdb$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > news:STeoa.1282$8Y1...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:b7nv27$aue$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > dear alan,
> > > >
> > > > what exactly is the difference between education and control? :)
> > > >
> > > > cl
> > >
> > > Well as it relates to man, I would say its the difference between an
> > > opened mind and a closed one. Or put another way, the difference
> > > between a man taught to fish, and the other thing.... [ a fish enticed
> > > by an appetising bait?-]
> >
> > I've come to believe that an "open mind" is just as much under control
> > as a "closed mind". The difference is that the open mind is under the
> > control of stimuli different from the stimuli that the closed mind is
under
> > the control of. A man who has learned to fish, is under the control of
> > various stimuli that allow him to obtain fish (assuming he continues to
> > fish).
>
> The illusion to fishing [an extension of your earlier goldfish story] was
> meant to illustrate education, Ie teaching a man to find and explore his
> own knowledge, whilst 'the other', simply presents a man with bodies
> of information.
yes, I had that in mind when I wrote my reply.
The latter i would suggest tends towards control.
>
> Btw way i see a difference between 'influence' and 'control'?
yes, people _sometimes_ use it differently. However, I can see no functional
difference. Some use control in a negative sense in some contexts and then
use the same word postively in other contexts; the same is true of
"influence".
>
> That said control as a point of discussion 'Control' is too open, to
> have one person presume the nature of control being discussed. My
> specific points earlier were on coersive control,
I had assumed that was what you meant. I was using it in the broader sense.
acknowledging that
> a level of control is necessary, but seeing coersive control as a
> culdesac that threatens the very meaning of understanding.
I'm not sure I understand the meaning of "understanding". :)
>
> > This may seem counterintuitive -- but the more a man learns, the
> > more he is controlled (and the more he controls).
>
> Your right it does seem counterintuitive. If a man learnt nothing, not
> even language, would he have greater control?
No, he would have less control -- he would be both controlled less, and have
less control. Yes, all of his actions would be controlled, but only by very
simple things; whereas the man who learns is controlled by and controls many
more complex things. For example, the man who cannot read is under no
control of anything in a book, or street signs, etc..; whereas a man who has
learned to read is under the control of a vastly greater amount of complex
stimuli. The learned man will be able to follow a map, he'll be able to get
off on the right exit, he'll be able to talk about what he's read in a book
and even apply what he has learned. The learned man is under more
control -- more complex stimuli effect his patterned path. The unlearned
man, is merely under the control of the natural elements, and his basic
needs to survive -- selected by his evolutionary history. He falls when
unsupported, and drinks when thirsty. He is not free, but he is free of
more complex stimuli that the learned man is not free of. In either case,
freedom is overrated, unless it is freedom from unnecessary coercive
control. But as you now see, I cannot view ALL control (or even most) as
coercive.
Does a creature existing
> just of instincts have greater control than a creature with a tendency
> towards reason?
I'm thinking that you may have read my words in the last post too quickly
(unless I'm missing some point that you're trying to make). But of course
the answers to your last 2 questions is "no". The more you control -- the
more you are controlled.
alan jones
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b7nutu$4hc$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:105062044...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> > > After I re-read that, I see that an addendum may be in order:
> > >
> > > Not only is every being in existence a conditioned being that
> > > grows with its conditioning, but *every being that ever was
> > > AND every BEING that ever will be -- was, is, and will be
> > > conditioned beings that grow with their their conditioning* --
> > > and whether we have the technology to comprehend and apply
> > > the abstracted principles of that conditioning or not will hardly
> > > matter in the grand scheme of things. We are as we are --
> > > whether we know it or not.
> >
> > Your generalisation would seem to dismiss man, as just another
> > being, subjected to the nature's laws, but we are thinking, feeling,
> > reasoning creatures, making decisions based on our understandings
> > of our environment.
>
> alllllll of which is subsumed under the laws of nature. you cannot
> escape that of which you are.
==== Of Nature ====
Again you state the obvious, there is no attempt to escape nature.
What there is, is an understanding of nature, where we are each
forces within the system we call nature. This use of nature to abdicate
from thought seems to be something of a trend. A trend I would suggest,
that comes out of the culture.
Of course everything takes place within nature. The best and the worst
of mankind extends out of nature, the motions of the planet, the actions
of stars. Indeed everything one imagines now and in the future, takes
place in nature. So what is the point of using nature to make any kind of
point. It's like saying we all breath. The fact that we exist, in a system we
call nature, does not excuse us seeing the actions of man, on man.
> > If the information on which [those] decisions are made, is squewed
> > by factors beyond our comprehension, then I would suggest it does
> > matter in the grand scheme of things. It matters when there are fewer
> > to conceive the alternatives.
> >
> > > Humans are not and will never be outside, above, or beyond the
> > > laws of nature. They will always take the path of least resistance
> > > available to them and obtain the most gain available -- no matter
> > > what is learned, no matter what is applied, no matter what is
> > > "controlled". (which btw., note that "control" is never a one-way
> > > imposition, rather it is always a two-way interaction).
> >
> > If man lived as long as the effects he sets into motion, we could
> > make a case for 'responsible control'. Unfortunately the visible
> > connection between 'cause' and 'effect' are soon lost to us. What
> > happens when the control is not accountable and there exist no
> > record for the nature of control set into being. (btw the two-way
> > interaction is only interactive if the controlled knows it is
> > controlled).
>
> "knowledge" is not a necessary component in the interaction known
> as "control".
< snipped Gold fish analogy >
=== Knowledge / Control / Man ====
Yes its true, knowledge is not necessarily a component of control.
If we were taking of abstracts or non reasoning beings you would
have a point, but we are talking of man's control, where knowledge
is crucial.
I am talking on the direction man looks to take the mind of man.
The point made again is on Man's control of Man. Out of aeons of
conflict we've evolved a system dependent upon knowledge, so
what happens when factors beyond reason acts to circumvent that
system?
>
> (However, I'm inclined to take Dennet's instrumentalist stance).
> But that is just one example. Furthermore, "responsible"
> control may only boil down to efficient control. The more one
> studies behaviour, the more one realises that what has worked for
> the past thousands of years, is not necessarily the most efficient
> working model (even though it works). Our models are outdated
[ maybe you'd be kind enough to summate your understanding of
Dennet rather than assume we both share the same dictionary of
ideas]
=== Responsible control =====
So our models are outdated, and so abruptly we adopt something
that at variance to our natural symbiotic links to our being. Consider
what is meant by a model. We analyse a working system, develop
ideas on how it works and then use those ideas as a pattern to create
our own systems. Taking that to be your idea of model, You might
say we need to revisit the sources on which the model is based, find
another understanding of nature, that works.
Nature is far from efficient. One could make a case for necessary
inefficiencies, in which case 'responsible control' would not mean
the same as 'efficient control'.
> At any rate, inductively speaking, the connection between cause
> and effect need not be observed (as Hume has made light of),
> rather what is necessary is what is known as "functional
> relationships". Functional relationships are simple inductive
> descriptions of events, and may be trusted as far as inductive
> science may be trusted. Certainly the laws of the universe may
> not hold tomorrow, but they've held forever to our knowledge
> and there is no reason to assume that they won't hold till the
> end of time.
==== This point of Functionalism ====
[Are we talking on the laws of the universe, or the fallible laws
of Man? Take another look at history, one soon sees that
fallibility. One also sees the necessary actions of people to
correct that fallibility, what happens when the minds of majority
is placed beyond caring? ]
The functional relationship says in this instance these factors
are dependent. There is little concern in such a model for the
actions of time. It's like the relationship between man and
industry, population, economics, war and culture. Without an
eye for cause and effects these aspects just are. Only 'cause'
and 'effect can lead to responsible control, or change..
The idea of Functional relationships allows for the further
increase of ideas and forms that maintains the current model.
Functional relationships when applied to the ideas the culture
sustains, dismisses the ideas that might be beneficial in the
'longer term', for the ideas that can co-exist within the 'current
term'.
Imagine philosophies created or sustained with the sole idea
of finding their niche in a system of functional relationships.
Even the idea of functional relationships could be seen as just
another functionary;)
And yet you see functional relationships in preference to an
understanding of cause and effect. Isn't that the problem with
man?
Functional dependency is a mechanistic stance that excuse
man's from his history. The pragmatically view which doesn't
need to concern its self with consequences.
>
> >
> > We live with culture, created and then persisting often
> > beyond any understanding of it origins or circumstance. So
> > where might this covert form take us? We are talking about
> > psychology, persisting like language and passed on in the
> > same fashion. Imagine the attitude of forced conditioning
> > becoming a new language, something practised in an attempt
> > to exact control. Language has us speaking as we are spoken
> > to, so what of this covert form of communication. Each
> > taking it upon himself to command attention. Not speaking
> > to, or with, but at.
> this is how it is done anyway, whether you realise it or not.
=== Language ===
You take my point to say, 'whether I realise it or not'? ;-)
The Point is expressed with an idea for cause and long effects,
I am talking about coercive control, moving beyond a system
imposed on the majority, to become a system practised by the
majority. You could dismiss the implications of that, as we in
our time set a direction which the future has little choose but to
follow. You could if you like, call it Nature and then close your
mind to the implication to our social interactions.
The crucial thing to note, is that the feed back which might
determine if this direction was beneficial would be corrupted
by this very direction of coercive control.
As a typical pragmatist, you accept it. I, on the other hand,
see it clearly enough to want to question it. I am speaking of
a particular form of psychology spreading and persisting like
language. Like language the root cause would soon be lost.
> The idea of information and free-will is a romanticised
> Quixote-like illusion. This is not to deny the mystery of the
> quality of our feelings and emotions, yet in the same stroke
> it is to deny the culdesac of dualistic terminology embedded
> in the language that we both use, yet use in different manners.
=== Free-Will ===
So you have no value for free-will?
Maybe free-will is simply the ability to ask, 'how' and 'why'. If
Man ever finds a way to remove that, then we would truly be
without free-will. Or is it that the ideas that says there is no
free-will allows the will to be constraint. Another functionary,
easily promoted because it chimes with the direction some
look to take.
>
> >
> > Neighbour bewitched by neighbour?-)
> >
> > Yes, to talk of controlled controllers controlling, or conditioned
> > beings, conditioning their young who grows to demand the same,
> > does have the ring of a truism, but that truism is presented against
> > a consideration of the worst case. For me, to not make plain, the
> > recursive nature of that loop would assume the point was already
> > known and understood. You talk about the laws of nature, as I
> > talk about the exploitation, of the laws of nature. Where the natural
> > is merged into the unnatural and the Doer is changed to match the
> > deed. Maybe it suits your conditioning, to dismiss the implications ;)
>
> On some occasions I have attempted to explore what "natural"
> amounts too.It seems apparent to me that there is no such thing as
> "unnatural" (at the 10,000 foot level).
=== Natural, Of nature? ==
Agreed, but here at ground zero, where thinking people reside, we have
rules for what is natural and unnatural. Your argument is that anything
that can exist is natural, nothing so elevated about that thought. Maybe
in the short term you see what you are told is an advantage, Maybe you
can close your mind to the much longer term effects. Maybe you can
excuse the other thing, that comes with that promised advantage, the
subliminal control which renders your perceptions meaningless.
> Aside from that personal philosophical opinion of mine though, I
> do not dismiss the possibility of some sociopath freak in a position
> of power gaining the knowledge of behaviour and using it to the greater
> destruction of his fellow man. This was once my concern, until, like
> chess, I thought it forward a few more moves. This worst case
> scenario is highly unlikely given our current environment.
=== Sociopath ===
You still don't get it.
How would you tell a sociopath in a culture that promoted the sociopath?
Not suddenly and noticeably, but incrementally as the culture moved
towards the extremes; as culture looked to make Doer and deed one.
The sociopath is by definition one that stands out from the rest, but
what if society grew so that by today's standards, where we were all
sociopath. Not freak, but Freak like us.
It wasn't that long ago that a culture arose which promoted the most
psychotic of its 'gentlemen', for that aspect of their character, That
state came into being as a result of a general air lawlessness, where the
only thing that matter was control at any cost. What would it take to
find ourselves back in that state? In that time we could look elsewhere
for an example of better. What happens when one can't find that
example elsewhere?
> > The technology to split the atom, didn't just provide a source of
> > energy, it made possible a new form of mass destruction. This
> > technology not only changes us, it changes how we relate.
> > Controlled controllers controlling.
>
> I like that: CCC
>
>
> >
> > There is an aspect of conditioning that has us sharing what is
> > consider of mutual benefit. Is that always true of the media?
> > Asked about the levels of crime and violence in society, the media
> > continue to say there is no connection to the media? Would this
> > other thing become another aspect of the media, to also be
> > dismissed?
> >
> > On a 'One to one' basis we are like ants, meeting and exchanging
> > knowledge, sharing behaviour. The one to many relationship is
> > something new, a dramatic change from nature. Made worst when
> > you consider information purposely designed to exploit the ways
> > in which we absorbed ideas. Unaccountable Influences,
> > circumventing democratic values. Turning on its head, what it
> > means to understand. Humanity as product, made to love it like
> > that.
>
> As it should. To "understand" means what? (again I take the
> instrumentalist point of view if you wonder where my opinion lies
> in this area).
So you wear the uniform of the instrumentalist. A suit of clothes
fashioned for our times. And prey tell, what is the intentions of the
instrumentalist?
What is the value of words and thoughts, if we only say what the
other wants to hear. And yet that seems to be the direction the culture
is moving in. Saying only what will find favour, or play its part is a
functionary, in a system modelled on functional relationships. So
what of the other ideas unsaid, the other philosophies unsupported
by this model.
And yet this idea of functionary relationships is just a crude
approximation to understand systems [ nature]. A model now
used as a pattern, leading to the increased simplification of life.
> >
> > > I fully contend that those who have a deep understanding of how
> > > such knowledge is applied are the very last people that would seek
> > > or cause the world to become more "polluted". Such people are
> > > the very first to 'clear' the pollution of overly-coercive practices
> > > that keep the world in a stagnant, declining state of self-destruction.
> >
> > The new gods, in whom we trust. Men like us, shaped by the same
> > forces that shape us all, Gods who will be born from amongst us.
> > Gods, working with the effects of the gods who went before them.
> > Gods controlling what we see, of the world, and of ourselves. In this
> > moment, at this time, we catch sight of man, taking a single step, in a
> > journey that takes us towards absolute control. You see the demon
> > he keeps on a leash to better control you.
>
> you speak of control as if it were mostly coercive -- not unusual --
> as folks often associate the word control with coercion. A huge
> problem in the world is that though teachers, parents, and politicians
> see the need for control, they think it is mainly a word that must be
> applied in a coercive sense. Wrong. control is much more.
If I were easily amused I might point out the irony, but there is
no Irony here, just control.
Yes I speak almost exclusively of coercive control, a warning with
an eye for the direction the culture takes us. Yes there are many
other forms of control, not least self control, but here and now I
speak only on this worst case.
>
> (gods!?! hahaha. myyy arse)
The reference to Gods, is made for "those who have a deep
understanding of how such knowledge is applied". Those whose
application of this understanding, would place them beyond our
understanding. God : one who is beyond understanding.
> you and the rest mentioned focus much too much on the dark-side
> young sky-walkers ;)
( (in case you hadn't notice this is ob2 you're speaking to ;) )
> >
> > I don't argue for the absence of control, But wonder what kind
> > of control we are embarked upon, control through understanding
> > or control through ignorance?
> >
> > In another time, aspects of the culture were able to warn of
> > subliminal control, in this time we just accept. The self that might
> > show concern has been replaced by the self that doesn't question.
> > And so it goes.
>
> hhhm, great point. and why does the self no longer question??????
> come up with that answer, and answer it well, and I'll invite you
> to a party some years in the future.
Well IM not really a party person, but the short form of this answer
would say the self that doesn't question, belongs to the group, it
sees only the moment, not the past, not the future, not cause, nor
effect, just the moment.
The self that doesn't question is without the example, the mirror of
ideas. The self that doesn't question is taught to see no value in the
steps taken between what we know and what we don't. The self that
doesn't question fears doubt. 'No doubt' It wears the certainty
presented by [/to] the group.
But then this entire thread, or the thread that was Culture and
Psychology is about the self that does not question.
See also 'Nurturing the Question in the young'
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Nurturing+the+%27Question%27+in+the+young.&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C2507DF.A505BAD%40freeuk.com&r
num=1
Aj
>
> cl
> nice talking with you
>
>
> >
> > There's a further thought on the dominate thought and imagination....
> >
> > Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:b7ljt6$5jo$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > "Chad L" <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b7k88n$7u0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > >
> > > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:105027474...@despina.uk.clara.net...
> > > > > > The "science of Behaviour psychology" is at much too primitive
> > > > > > a state right now for people to be able to do what you suggest.
> > > > >
> > > > > One could say the motor car is primitive, compared to what it will
> > > > > be a hundred or two hundred years from now, however that would
> > > > > not invalidate the technology as it currently exists. The same is
> > > > > true of the science of Behaviour psychology. This science came
> > > > > into its own when Pavlov in the late nineteenth century observed
> > > > > the ways in which "a natural urge could be harnessed to an unnatural
> > > > > cue Pavlov's so called 'stimuli of the first order' where to experience
> > > > learn to drive, we will not survive. And there is apparently no
alan jones
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b89b26$3p0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
I'm pleased you saw that, another might have only seen the cheap [a fish
enticed by a bait] and missed my intended meaning for control.
>
> The latter I would suggest tends towards control.
> >
> > Btw way I see a difference between 'influence' and 'control'?
>
> yes, people _sometimes_ use it differently. However, I can see no functional
> difference. Some use control in a negative sense in some contexts and then
> use the same word positively in other contexts; the same is true of
> "influence".
Will I see Control as fitting a deterministic model of behaviour, Influence allows
for choice in what we find influential. In networking influences would be the
many possible paths all having equal [?)] weight, which might or may not affect
out come. Control on the other has many more paths converging, hence control.
>
> >
> > That said control as a point of discussion 'Control' is too open, to
> > have one person presume the nature of control being discussed. My
> > specific points earlier were on coercive control,
>
> I had assumed that was what you meant. I was using it in the broader
> sense.
>
> > acknowledging that a level of control is necessary, but seeing coercive
> > control as a culdesac that threatens the very meaning of understanding.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the meaning of "understanding". :)
Well its not associative, or based on [simple] memory, I would say its
based on inference, an internal model we build that allows us to form
an idea of the cases beyond the range of memory.
> >
> > > This may seem counterintuitive -- but the more a man learns, the
> > > more he is controlled (and the more he controls).
> >
> > Your right it does seem counterintuitive. If a man learnt nothing, not
> > even language, would he have greater control?
>
> No, he would have less control -- he would be both controlled less, and
> have less control. Yes, all of his actions would be controlled, but only
> by very simple things; whereas the man who learns is controlled by and
> controls many more complex things. For example, the man who cannot
> read is under no control of anything in a book, or street signs, etc..;
> whereas a man who has learned to read is under the control of a vastly
> greater amount of complex stimuli. The learned man will be able to follow
> a map, he'll be able to get off on the right exit, he'll be able to talk about
> what he's read in a book and even apply what he has learned. The learned
> man is under more control -- more complex stimuli effect his patterned path.
> The unlearned man, is merely under the control of the natural elements, and
> his basic needs to survive -- selected by his evolutionary history. He falls
> when unsupported, and drinks when thirsty. He is not free, but he is free of
> more complex stimuli that the learned man is not free of.
Much of what you say I would agree with, but then you make the following
point.....
> In either case, freedom is overrated, unless it is freedom from unnecessary
> coercive control. But as you now see, I cannot view ALL control (or even
> most) as coercive.
Then the freedom should be the freedom to consider all ideas on equal merit,
coercion, forces all ideas towards a point of convergence. Sometimes we can
see this, most cases we can't. If you were being coercively controlled how
would you know?
Chad L
is an acronym I can't recall, but it works -- especially if a conversation
is getting long, and going off on tangents.
"alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:105120972...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
as long as we may agree that "understanding", or "understanding nature", is
not beyond or above nature.
>
> Of course everything takes place within nature. The best and the worst
> of mankind extends out of nature, the motions of the planet, the actions
> of stars. Indeed everything one imagines now and in the future, takes
> place in nature. So what is the point of using nature to make any kind of
> point. It's like saying we all breath. The fact that we exist, in a system
we
> call nature, does not excuse us seeing the actions of man, on man.
I agree; though often, people tend to see man, and his consciousness, as
something that is beyond nature -- as if man is somehow mysteriously not
completely subject to its laws because he "understands" some of its laws.
Notice that man-made things are said to be not "natural". Most people seem
to talk and think that man is somehow separted from nature, somehow apart
from it, somehow greater than it because man talks and reasons. Man is
implied to be something "special" when compared to the cruel and unreasoned
mother nature. This view does not perplex me; rather it affords me humor
with a bitter edge.
You have observed in your own experience what I'm talking about?
wasn't assuming; just hoping. (but thanks for taking the time to ask
anyway -- most people won't even do that).
In conclusion, one can infer from Dennett that people explain things by
their function, and their explanations should be consistent when describing
objects and events around them. However, people are not consistent in their
explanations and application of descriptions for reasons that are not
strictly logical. For example, you wouldn't say that the thermometer
understood that it was cold, desired to drop, and therefore dropped due to
its desire -- even though this would be consistent _in fuction_ to what is
described when we talk about human or animal behavior.
> === Responsible control =====
>
> So our models are outdated, and so abruptly we adopt something
> that at variance to our natural symbiotic links to our being. Consider
> what is meant by a model. We analyse a working system, develop
> ideas on how it works and then use those ideas as a pattern to create
> our own systems. Taking that to be your idea of model, You might
> say we need to revisit the sources on which the model is based, find
> another understanding of nature, that works.
>
> Nature is far from efficient. One could make a case for necessary
> inefficiencies, in which case 'responsible control' would not mean
> the same as 'efficient control'.
thats true, if the inefficiencies truly are necessary.
>
> > At any rate, inductively speaking, the connection between cause
> > and effect need not be observed (as Hume has made light of),
> > rather what is necessary is what is known as "functional
> > relationships". Functional relationships are simple inductive
> > descriptions of events, and may be trusted as far as inductive
> > science may be trusted. Certainly the laws of the universe may
> > not hold tomorrow, but they've held forever to our knowledge
> > and there is no reason to assume that they won't hold till the
> > end of time.
>
> >
> > >
> > > We live with culture, created and then persisting often
> > > beyond any understanding of it origins or circumstance. So
> > > where might this covert form take us? We are talking about
> > > psychology, persisting like language and passed on in the
> > > same fashion. Imagine the attitude of forced conditioning
> > > becoming a new language, something practised in an attempt
> > > to exact control. Language has us speaking as we are spoken
> > > to, so what of this covert form of communication. Each
> > > taking it upon himself to command attention. Not speaking
> > > to, or with, but at.
>
> > this is how it is done anyway, whether you realise it or not.
>
> === Language ===
>
> You take my point to say, 'whether I realise it or not'? ;-)
>
> The Point is expressed with an idea for cause and long effects,
> I am talking about coercive control, moving beyond a system
> imposed on the majority, to become a system practised by the
> majority.
there is no imposition, that is simply the way the majority, in fact
everyone already lives. In a world of consequences that determine future
actions.
You could dismiss the implications of that, as we in
> our time set a direction which the future has little choose but to
> follow. You could if you like, call it Nature and then close your
> mind to the implication to our social interactions.
>
> The crucial thing to note, is that the feed back which might
> determine if this direction was beneficial would be corrupted
> by this very direction of coercive control.
>
> As a typical pragmatist, you accept it. I, on the other hand,
> see it clearly enough to want to question it. I am speaking of
> a particular form of psychology spreading and persisting like
> language. Like language the root cause would soon be lost.
>
> > The idea of information and free-will is a romanticised
> > Quixote-like illusion. This is not to deny the mystery of the
> > quality of our feelings and emotions, yet in the same stroke
> > it is to deny the culdesac of dualistic terminology embedded
> > in the language that we both use, yet use in different manners.
>
> === Free-Will ===
>
> So you have no value for free-will?
none whatsoever
>
> Maybe free-will is simply the ability to ask, 'how' and 'why'. If
> Man ever finds a way to remove that, then we would truly be
> without free-will.
we don't need "free-will" to ask these questions or find their answers.
Or is it that the ideas that says there is no
> free-will allows the will to be constraint.
"ideas", i.e., habits of the functioning brain. the only contraint is the
"contraint" of nature. the only chains are those of cause-effect. it
doesn't matter what your brain's habits are, the world is as it is, and we
are not free of nature -- and we are not of free-will.
nature doesn't work that way. humans are a part of nature, and will not
depart from their naturally selected biology. a sociopath is a genetic
variability in the pattern, like a woman with 3 breasts. a socipathic
society is like having a 4 sided triangle, or dry-water, or hot-ice, or
free-will. It is an oxymoron. nature doesn't work that way.
>
> It wasn't that long ago that a culture arose which promoted the most
> psychotic of its 'gentlemen', for that aspect of their character, That
> state came into being as a result of a general air lawlessness, where the
> only thing that matter was control at any cost. What would it take to
> find ourselves back in that state? In that time we could look elsewhere
> for an example of better. What happens when one can't find that
> example elsewhere?
See, you have difficulty seperating "control", as a functional description
of events -- from "control", as a coercive means toward debauchery and
immorality. You hear "control" -- you can't stop yourself from thinking the
worst. Even if the worst is about as possible as Freddie Cruger jumping out
of your tv screen and hacking you to peices with his culinary glove. (I
didn't know what else to call his glove with the knives on it ;))
You should read up on Dennet. "The Intentional Stance", Cambridge, Mass:
MIT press (1987).
Listen, I see that you're either from Canada or Europe or Austrailia (its
the way you spell). Now, I know in Europe the book "1984" created a huge
hype. But if people understood behavior a little better, they'd hardly get
so excited.
>
> Yes I speak almost exclusively of coercive control, a warning with
> an eye for the direction the culture takes us. Yes there are many
> other forms of control, not least self control, but here and now I
> speak only on this worst case.
>
> >
> > (gods!?! hahaha. myyy arse)
>
> The reference to Gods, is made for "those who have a deep
> understanding of how such knowledge is applied". Those whose
> application of this understanding, would place them beyond our
> understanding. God : one who is beyond understanding.
well, then may I suggest some readings so that you may better understand,
and thus become a "god"? Though, I warn you, with advanced understanding,
one realizes just how tiny one's god-like kingdom actually is. lol, the
only way a person could fear the 1984 scenario, is if such a person did not
have such an understanding of how such knowledge is applied. This sooo
reminds me of the past when religous people feared all sorts of things
scientific that went beyond their experience (if you're religious, then I do
not mean to offend you, as religious people then have clear differences from
religous people today).
> > you and the rest mentioned focus much too much on the dark-side
> > young sky-walkers ;)
>
> ( (in case you hadn't notice this is ob2 you're speaking to ;) )
ob2kenobi!
>
> > >
> > > I don't argue for the absence of control, But wonder what kind
> > > of control we are embarked upon, control through understanding
> > > or control through ignorance?
> > >
> > > In another time, aspects of the culture were able to warn of
> > > subliminal control, in this time we just accept. The self that might
> > > show concern has been replaced by the self that doesn't question.
> > > And so it goes.
> >
> > hhhm, great point. and why does the self no longer question??????
> > come up with that answer, and answer it well, and I'll invite you
> > to a party some years in the future.
>
> Well IM not really a party person, but the short form of this answer
> would say the self that doesn't question, belongs to the group, it
> sees only the moment, not the past, not the future, not cause, nor
> effect, just the moment.
>
> The self that doesn't question is without the example, the mirror of
> ideas. The self that doesn't question is taught to see no value in the
> steps taken between what we know and what we don't. The self that
> doesn't question fears doubt. 'No doubt' It wears the certainty
> presented by [/to] the group.
so you're saying that the group might teach or condition the individual to
NOT question? (if that's what can be inferred from what you say, then I
completely agree -- and if you don't mind, would like to apply my relatively
deep understanding of how to apply the principles of human behavior to
stimulate people to question -- I agree that people do not question nearly
enough).
Chad L
> >
> > > Btw way I see a difference between 'influence' and 'control'?
> >
> > yes, people _sometimes_ use it differently. However, I can see no
functional
> > difference. Some use control in a negative sense in some contexts and
then
> > use the same word positively in other contexts; the same is true of
> > "influence".
>
> Will I see Control as fitting a deterministic model of behaviour,
Influence allows
> for choice in what we find influential. In networking influences would be
the
> many possible paths all having equal [?)] weight, which might or may not
affect
> out come. Control on the other has many more paths converging, hence
control.
right. control does just that. but it also allows for choice. However,
control seeks to desribe what is generally thought to cause one to make a
that choice. I agree that we make choices; now, what causes us to make one
choice over another?
I know some will answer that question by using the word "free-will", but I
would contest that answer as an insufficient folk explanation of behavior --
similar to saying that objects fall back to earth because they are jubuliant
to return to their mother earth.
as opposed to ad bacculum arguments? (arguments that persuade via coercive
force).
> coercion, forces all ideas towards a point of convergence. Sometimes we
can
> see this, most cases we can't. If you were being coercively controlled how
> would you know?
You would know if you sought to avoid or escape such an interaction. Still
though, not all coercion is bad either. We cannot judge good or bad based on
the mere fact of whether control is coercive or not; rather we must also
observe the consequences of such actions or "control". If your child starts
to put a fork in the light switch, and you spank the crap out of him for it,
then who can rightfully say that this coercive control is wrong when the
child's life will be saved? (as it will be muuuch less likely to bring a
fork or anything else towards a light socket).
What you seem to be concerned about is the taking away of options. Like for
example government mind controllers secretly conditioning select children to
grow up to do select jobs. E.g., these people will be doctors, these will
be lawyers, these will trashmen, and they will know of no other options in
their lifetimes.
Okay, here I would have a definite problem with this kind of control. But
NOT because it's control, rather because I would argue the consequences
would be ultimately non-beneficial to society. (hey, though! thats sounds
like something new to argue about on this newsgroup! I'm sure others would
take the other side... we call it, ehhhh, the ethics of "life-engineering",
or something).
alan jones
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b89iih$31r$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:105121174...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> > >
> > > > Btw way I see a difference between 'influence' and 'control'?
> > >
> > > yes, people _sometimes_ use it differently. However, I can see
> > > no functional difference. Some use control in a negative sense
> > > in some contexts and then use the same word positively in other
> > > contexts; the same is true of "influence".
> >
> > Will I see Control as fitting a deterministic model of behaviour,
> > Influence allows for choice in what we find influential. In networking
> > influences would be the many possible paths all having equal [?)]
> > weight, which might or may not affect out come. Control on the
> > other has many more paths converging, hence control.
>
> right. control does just that. but it also allows for choice. However,
> make a that choice. I agree that we make choices; now, what causes
> us to make one choice over another?
>
> I know some will answer that question by using the word "free-will",
> but I would contest that answer as an insufficient folk explanation of
> behavior -- similar to saying that objects fall back to earth because
> they are jubuliant to return to their mother earth.
Your idea of the free-will is much like my idea of the soul. But I do
say we have free-will, in as much as that will, can be made less free.
Why we chose one thing over another, has much to do with 'the
moment' and how the stimuli that occurs in the moment, interacts or
plays against the body of experience we've acquired. For example
lets say I have a choice of several words, one of those words might
have several connotations.. If something in the moment happens to
stimulate a path into one of those connotations, or some residual
memory with a path into one of those connotation to the word, it
might inadvertately lead me to choice that word over the others.
At a neural level you might say we are mechanistic, but given the
stuff we are composed of, it could be no other way. What really
distinguishes us, are our experiences. The complex individual is
shaped by the verity of experiences he acquires, limit that to the
same set of shared experiences and you create beings of largely
predictable or deterministic behaviour.
> > > > That said control as a point of discussion 'Control' is too
> > > > open, to have one person presume the nature of control
> > > > being discussed. My specific points earlier were on coercive
> > > > control,
> > >
> > > I had assumed that was what you meant. I was using it in the
> > > broader sense.
> > >
> > > > acknowledging that a level of control is necessary, but seeing
> > > > coercive control as a culdesac that threatens the very meaning
> > > > of understanding.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I understand the meaning of "understanding". :)
> >
> > Well its not associative, or based on [simple] memory, I would say
> > its based on inference, an internal model we build that allows us to
> > form an idea of the cases beyond the range of memory.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > This may seem counterintuitive -- but the more a man learns,
> > > > > the more he is controlled (and the more he controls).
> > > >
> > > > Your right it does seem counterintuitive. If a man learnt nothing,
> > > > not even language, would he have greater control?
> > >
> > > No, he would have less control -- he would be both controlled
> > > less, and have less control. Yes, all of his actions would be
> > > controlled but only by very simple things; whereas the man who
> > > learns is controlled by and controls many more complex things.
> > > For examle the man who cannot read is under no control of any-
> > > thing in a book, or street signs, etc..; whereas a man who has
> > > learned to read is under the control of a vastly greater amount of
> > > complex stimuli. The learned man will be able to follow a map,
> > > he'll be able to get off on the right exit, he'll be able to talk about
> > > what he's read in a book and even apply what he has learned.
> > > The learned man is under more control -- more complex stimuli
> > > effect his patterned path. The unlearned man, is merely under the
> > > control of the natural elements, and his basic needs to survive --
> > > selected by his evolutionary history. He falls when unsupported,
> > > and drinks when thirsty. He is not free, but he is free of more
> > > complex stimuli that the learned man is not free of.
> >
> > Much of what you say I would agree with, but then you make the
> > following point.....
> >
> > > In either case, freedom is overrated, unless it is freedom from
> > > unnecessary coercive control. But as you now see, I cannot
> > > view ALL control (or even most) as coercive.
> >
> > Then the freedom should be the freedom to consider all ideas on
> > equal merit,
>
> as opposed to ad bacculum arguments? (arguments that persuade
> via coercive force).
Not even that. I'd say as opposed to the subliminal means to covertly
persuade, or the saturation of the culture that leave no other conclusion.
> > coercion, forces all ideas towards a point of convergence.
> > Sometimes we can see this, most cases we can't. If you were being
> > coercively controlled how would you know?
>
> You would know if you sought to avoid or escape such an interaction.
But how would you know there was any to escape from or to. You
would have just one perception, that which seemed common place.
Unless you had a mind to formulate ideas that took you into the apparently
absurd, and then sought to test those formulation against the 'real world',
most people would just continue with the status quo.
Imagine you were one of those characters in the Matrix, no not the
heroes, but the drones living imagined lives. How would you know?
Could you as a drone begin to conceive of a life beyond the apparent?
And yet is possible that generations of coercion could lead one into
accepting such a state, where the boundaries between the published
truth, and the actual truth were imperceptive to us. You in your corner,
I in mind ;)
> Still though, not all coercion is bad either. We cannot judge good or
> bad based on the mere fact of whether control is coercive or not; rather
> we must also observe the consequences of such actions or "control".
> If your child starts to put a fork in the light switch, and you spank the
> crap out of him for it, then who can rightfully say that this coercive
> control is wrong when the child's life will be saved? (as it will be
> muuuch less likely to bring a fork or anything else towards a light
> socket).
You speak as I imagine a coercive might, if he were trying to convince
himself there were merit to his practice of coercion;) Seriously though,
lets say that I *wanted* to slap that child. What if I made it possible for
the child to endanger itself, by locking it in a room with a nothing in it
but a light socket and a fork. Lets say I justified this by saying I wanted
to teach the child a lesson. A lesson it might learn fatally were I not there.
I might create this scenario of danger, then allow the child to come close
to endanger itself, before I delivered that pivotal chastisement. The child
might be hurt in the sort term, but the longer term consequence would
hopefully mean the child's safety was assured.
You might say this was justified coercion.... Only life is not like that ;-/
> What you seem to be concerned about is the taking away of options.
Its not just the taking away of options, its the blinkers it constructs
that forces us to see life as only one thing, its the attitude of mind it
forces that excludes the creativity that would be natural were it not
for these constraints. Its the production like control, that says I can't
trust you to think for yourself. Above all its being shaped without
one knowing it to be as another expects you to be, for better or worst.
> Like for example government mind controllers secretly conditioning
> select children to grow up to do select jobs. E.g., these people will
> be doctors, these will be lawyers, these will trashmen, and they will
> know of no other options in their lifetimes.
You can laugh ;) But I recall being shunted into doing Chemistry, a
subject I wasn't at all suited to, let alone interested in. My preference
for computers study was denied me. Since then the computer industry
has taken off in a way that couldn't have been predicted, whilst the
older chemical industry, which apparently needed industrial chemist
has down sized.
Of course all this only becomes apparent with experience, but at the
time I had no choice but to trust those I thought knew better. The point
is someone else's prediction for an individual can never match the
expectations a person has for himself. The Behavouralist would seek
to make that a science. Committees determining the future for their
unsuspecting charges.
> Okay, here I would have a definite problem with this kind of control.
> But NOT because it's control, rather because I would argue the
> consequences would be ultimately non-beneficial to society. (hey,
> though! thats sounds like something new to argue about on this
> newsgroup! I'm sure others would take the other side... we call it,
> ehhhh, the ethics of "life-engineering", or something).
You'd have to allow room for 'cause' and 'effect', with perhaps a
look at pervious and current "life-engineering".;)
alan jones
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b89gp3$17i$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> It's alright with me. Some I've chatted with before calls it "RIPing".
> RIP is an acronym I can't recall, but it works -- especially if a
> conversation is getting long, and going off on tangents.
Cute ;)
> > abdicate from thought, seems to be something of a trend. A trend
> > I would suggest, that comes out of the culture.
>
> as long as we may agree that "understanding", or "understanding
> nature", is not beyond or above nature.
This broad view of nature, would render the word meaningless since
there is nothing to distinguish it from anything else. The interpretation
of nature that gives it meaning is that which allows for something to
be man-made, unnatural, or not of nature. But as long as we share the
same definitions, anyone else happening on this exchange does like
wise.
> >
> > Of course everything takes place within nature. The best and the worst
> > of mankind extends out of nature, the motions of the planet, the actions
> > of stars. Indeed everything one imagines now and in the future, takes
> > place in nature. So what is the point of using nature to make any kind of
> > point. It's like saying we all breath. The fact that we exist, in a system
> > we call nature, does not excuse us seeing the actions of man, on man.
>
> I agree; though often, people tend to see man, and his consciousness, as
> something that is beyond nature -- as if man is somehow mysteriously not
> completely subject to its laws because he "understands" some of its laws.
> Notice that man-made things are said to be not "natural". Most people
> seem to talk and think that man is somehow separted from nature, somehow
> apart from it, somehow greater than it because man talks and reasons.
> Man is implied to be something "special" when compared to the cruel and
> unreasoned mother nature. This view does not perplex me; rather it affords
> me humor with a bitter edge.
>
> You have observed in your own experience what I'm talking about?
You could say that... but back on this distinction between man and the
rest of nature. Isn't it fair to make the point that a particular object or
event might not have occurred but for intelligent behaviour, and there
-fore isn't of nature. If one were looking to space for signs of
Intelligence, wouldn't we be looking for something that was not of
nature? One needs some means of making that distinction, maybe its
enough to say Intelligent or not. And yet there are times when our
behaviour follows nature and has little to do with intelligence.
One might observe the behaviour of an ant, or some larger creature
as intelligent, Or maybe the point is made by observing what man
has in common with the rest of nature. And it is that which allows
us to say man is of nature.
Maybe it takes the longer term view to see the necessity of these
short term inefficiencies. A question of scale. Its typical of man
to formulate models that allow him to see what he wants to see.
A behavoralist, charting hundreds, thousands even millions will
observe their similarities. The statistics collated will iron out the
minor differences of behaviour, even though its those minor
difference that distinguishes one as unique. Any trend towards
greater efficiencies would have to acknowledge that uniformity
isn't a desirable human trait, however much the military or
industrial mind might see it so.
Ok, I restate my point. In a normal group a particular mannerism
might find favour and be amplified, by being repeated and
remembered. What if a new type of behaviour were introduced to
the group without the group making a choice as to its favorability?
Something covertly forced on mass onto the group, to be later
adopted and practised. What if this thing, was the very example
of covert / subliminal manipulation. And that then spread through
the group in the manner described.
On a one to one basis, it might despised or soon lose favour,
the critical mass needed to make it a permanent part of the
group would never be reached. On mass it becomes a new
language, a new way to conduct ourselves. In other words,
borrowing from the Language analogy, it like a population
suddenly discovering a new word Waaattttttzzzzzzuuuuup.
Only this has a behavioural aspect to it, that could not have
been assimilated in any other way than via the use of the
media.
>
> You could dismiss the implications of that, as we in
> > our time set a direction which the future has little choose but to
> > follow. You could if you like, call it Nature and then close your
> > mind to the implication to our social interactions.
> >
> > The crucial thing to note, is that the feed back which might
> > determine if this direction was beneficial would be corrupted
> > by this very direction of coercive control.
> >
> > As a typical pragmatist, you accept it. I, on the other hand,
> > see it clearly enough to want to question it. I am speaking of
> > a particular form of psychology spreading and persisting like
> > language. Like language the root cause would soon be lost.
> >
> > > The idea of information and free-will is a romanticised
> > > Quixote-like illusion. This is not to deny the mystery of the
> > > quality of our feelings and emotions, yet in the same stroke
> > > it is to deny the culdesac of dualistic terminology embedded
> > > in the language that we both use, yet use in different manners.
> >
> > === Free-Will ===
> >
> > So you have no value for free-will?
>
> none whatsoever
Or you have an higher expectation for free-will ;)
> > Maybe free-will is simply the ability to ask, 'how' and 'why'. If
> > Man ever finds a way to remove that, then we would truly be
> > without free-will.
>
> we don't need "free-will" to ask these questions or find their
> answers.
I would suggest that a question is asked because there is percived
a need for an answer. Not all questions that can be asked, are
asked. For example we might just accept rather than ask, why is
this system better than that other.
> > Or is it that the ideas that says there is no free-will, also allows
> > the 'will' to be constraint?
>
> "ideas", i.e., habits of the functioning brain. the only contraint is the
> "contraint" of nature. the only chains are those of cause-effect. it
> doesn't matter what your brain's habits are, the world is as it is, and
> we are not free of nature -- and we are not of free-will.
Its seem you are back in that, mode again. Where man is concerned
we are of nature, contributing to nature. If nature constrains us then
we play our part collectively in constraining ourselves. You yourself
make the point that we are indivisible from nature. As for the chains
of cause and effect, it doesn't take that much for the chain to be
broken and for us to be divorced from cause, and only see a chain
of effects. You talk of the individual brain as if we existed in isolation,
collectively it does matter.
As for the world is as it is.... this is barely worthy of thought. But
as you say, you have no free-will, yours is not to question or make
sense, just to accept.
Would you deny the role nurture plays in determining outcome? Would
you deny the role culture has in our expressions, and what we deem
acceptable? '...Naturally selected biology'??
We are creatures of behaviour being shaped by culture. A culture
that takes us in a particular direction. The attitudes we say are that
of at variant, which determines a sociopath, will in another age
become accepted as the norm, common place because the same
values are shared by all. This is about what is considered acceptable.
I think you confuse what we have in common with nature, with what
we don't have in common. Nature is without an idea of culture,
changing rapidly from one generation to the next. The habits we see
in nature, are hardwired passed on through DNA. Man has another
level of information, which changes rapidly and which does affect
behaviour.
>
> >
> > It wasn't that long ago that a culture arose which promoted the most
> > psychotic of its 'gentlemen', for that aspect of their character, That
> > state came into being as a result of a general air lawlessness, where the
> > only thing that matter was control at any cost. What would it take to
> > find ourselves back in that state? In that time we could look elsewhere
> > for an example of better. What happens when one can't find that
> > example elsewhere?
>
> See, you have difficulty seperating "control", as a functional description
> of events -- from "control", as a coercive means toward debauchery and
> immorality. You hear "control" -- you can't stop yourself from thinking the
> worst. Even if the worst is about as possible as Freddie Cruger jumping out
> of your tv screen and hacking you to peices with his culinary glove. (I
> didn't know what else to call his glove with the knives on it ;))
This thread was about the esoteric value we give the idea of control,
it was about the interplay between culture and psychology, and the way
that swings at pivotal moment in man's history. Towards the end the
thread became concerned with the means that bring about that shift of
psychology and the persistence of media, that will slow or prevent a
necessary swing in psychology. The coercive nature of control is central
to the point being made, how despite ourselves we are persuaded to hold
one opinion over another. Trust me, my particular stance on coercive
control has nothing to do with a lack of control on my part. I speak
because I perceive a need to speak. I need for understanding that which
we take for granted. This is an attempt to create language to allow
expression for feelings.
If I can find an on-line source, I just might do that. In any case I asked
about intentions, because often we adapt to ideas without taking account
that beyond science, an idea might be formulated with a preconceived
intent. I.E an attitude it creates in those receptive to the idea.
Do you recall the Stanford experiment.... Do you recall how easy it
was to have decent human being change. Well science has moved on
a pace. You might laugh at my concern, but remember we are separated
by culture, experience and understanding.
I think you'll find there a limit to how much the culture expects or wants
people to question. Look about you, about the only place you find open
questioning minds are the sciences and the arts. That's perhaps that's an
overstatement, but the level of questioning which takes nothing for
granted would soon find it, wasn't a functionary of society's chosen path.
See my other post 'Nurturing the Question in the young'
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Nurturing+the+%27Question%27+in+the+young.&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C2507DF.A505BAD%40freeuk.com&r
num=1
>
> >
alan jones
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b89iih$31r$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:105121174...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> > >
> > > > Btw way I see a difference between 'influence' and 'control'?
> > >
> > > yes, people _sometimes_ use it differently. However, I can see
> > > no functional difference. Some use control in a negative sense
> > > in some contexts and then use the same word positively in other
> > > contexts; the same is true of "influence".
> >
> > Will I see Control as fitting a deterministic model of behaviour,
> > Influence allows for choice in what we find influential. In networking
> > influences would be the many possible paths all having equal [?)]
> > weight, which might or may not affect out come. Control on the
> > other has many more paths converging, hence control.
>
> right. control does just that. but it also allows for choice. However,
> control seeks to describe what is generally thought to cause one to
> make a that choice. I agree that we make choices; now, what causes
> us to make one choice over another?
>
> I know some will answer that question by using the word "free-will",
> but I would contest that answer as an insufficient folk explanation of
> behavior -- similar to saying that objects fall back to earth because
> they are jubuliant to return to their mother earth.
Your idea of the 'free-will' is much like my idea of 'the soul'. Even so
I do say we have free-will, in as much as that Will, can be made less
free.
Why we chose one thing over another, has much to do with 'the
moment' and how the stimuli that occurs in the moment, interacts or
plays against the body of experience we've acquired. For example,
lets say I have a choice of several words, each of those words might
be understood with different connotations. If something in 'the
moment' happens to stimulate a path into one of those connotations,
or else a residual memory has a path into one of those word
connotations, it might inadvertately lead me to choose one word
over the others.
You could say we are mechanistic at a neural level, but given the
stuff we are composed of, it could be no other way. What really
distinguishes us, are our experiences. The complex individual is
shaped by the verity of experiences he acquires, limit that to the
same set of shared experiences and you create beings of largely
predictable or deterministic behaviour.
> > > > That said control as a point of discussion 'Control' is too
> > > > open, to have one person presume the nature of control
> > > > being discussed. My specific points earlier were on
> > > > coercive control,
> > >
> > > I had assumed that was what you meant. I was using it in the
> > > broader sense.
> > >
> > > > acknowledging that a level of control is necessary, but seeing
> > > > coercive control as a culdesac that threatens the very meaning
> > > > of understanding.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I understand the meaning of "understanding". :)
> >
> > Well its not associative, or based on [simple] memory, I would say
> > its based on inference, an internal model we build that allows us to
> > form an idea of the cases beyond the range of memory.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > This may seem counterintuitive -- but the more a man learns,
> > > > > the more he is controlled (and the more he controls).
> > > >
> > > > Your right it does seem counterintuitive. If a man learnt nothing,
> > > > not even language, would he have greater control?
> > >
> > > No, he would have less control -- he would be both controlled
> > > less, and have less control. Yes, all of his actions would be
> > > controlled but only by very simple things; whereas the man who
> > > learns is controlled by and controls many more complex things.
> > > For example the man who cannot read is under no control of any-
> > > thing in a book, or street signs, etc..; whereas a man who has
> > > learned to read is under the control of a vastly greater amount of
> > > complex stimuli. The learned man will be able to follow a map,
> > > he'll be able to get off on the right exit, he'll be able to talk about
> > > what he's read in a book and even apply what he has learned.
> > > The learned man is under more control -- more complex stimuli
> > > effect his patterned path. The unlearned man, is merely under the
> > > control of the natural elements, and his basic needs to survive --
> > > selected by his evolutionary history. He falls when unsupported,
> > > and drinks when thirsty. He is not free, but he is free of more
> > > complex stimuli that the learned man is not free of.
> >
> > Much of what you say I would agree with, but then you make the
> > following point.....
> >
> > > In either case, freedom is overrated, unless it is freedom from
> > > unnecessary coercive control. But as you now see, I cannot
> > > view ALL control (or even most) as coercive.
> >
> > Then the freedom should be the freedom to consider all ideas on
> > equal merit,
>
> as opposed to ad bacculum arguments? (arguments that persuade
> via coercive force).
Not even that. I'd say as opposed to the subliminal means to covertly
persuade, or the saturation of the culture to leave us no other conclusion.
> > coercion, forces all ideas towards a point of convergence.
> > Sometimes we can see this, most cases we can't. If you were being
> > coercively controlled how would you know?
>
> You would know if you sought to avoid or escape such an interaction.
But how would you know there was any such coercion to escape from
or to. You would have just one perception, that which seemed common
place. Coercion might imperceptible unless you had a mind to formulate
ideas that took you into the apparently absurd, and you then sought to
test those formulation against the 'real world'. Its likely that most people
would just continue with the status quo. Unaware of the quali of blue,
until told by one who had suddenly gained sight.
Imagine you were one of those characters in the Matrix, no not the
heroes, but the drones living imagined lives. How would you know?
Could you as a drone begin to conceive of a life beyond the apparent?
And yet it is possible that generations of coercion could lead one into
accepting such a state, where the boundaries between the published
truth, and the actual truth were imperceptive to us. You in your corner,
I in mind ;)
> Still though, not all coercion is bad either. We cannot judge good or
> bad based on the mere fact of whether control is coercive or not; rather
> we must also observe the consequences of such actions or "control".
> If your child starts to put a fork in the light switch, and you spank the
> crap out of him for it, then who can rightfully say that this coercive
> control is wrong when the child's life will be saved? (as it will be
> muuuch less likely to bring a fork or anything else towards a light
> socket).
You speak as I imagine a coercive might, if he were trying to convince
himself there were merit to his practice of coercion;) Seriously though,
lets say that I *wanted* to slap that child. What if I made it possible for
the child to endanger itself, by locking it in a room with nothing in it,
but a light socket and a fork. Lets say I justified this by saying I wanted
to teach the child a lesson. A lesson it might learn fatally were I not there.
I might create this scenario of danger, then allow the child to come close
to endangering itself, before I delivered that pivotal chastisement. The
child might be hurt in the sort term, but the longer term consequence
would hopefully mean the child's safety was assured.
You might say this was justified coercion.... Only life is not like that ;-/
> What you seem to be concerned about is the taking away of options.
Its not just the taking away of options, its the blinkers it constructs
which forces us to see life as only one thing, its the attitude of mind it
forces that excludes the creativity that would be natural were it not
for these constraints. Its the production like control, that says I can't
trust you to think for yourself. Above all its being shaped without
one knowing it, to be as another expects you to be, for better or worst.
> Like for example government mind controllers secretly conditioning
> select children to grow up to do select jobs. E.g., these people will
> be doctors, these will be lawyers, these will trashmen, and they will
> know of no other options in their lifetimes.
You can laugh ;) But I recall being shunted into doing Chemistry, a
subject I wasn't at all suited to, let alone interested in. My preference
for computers study was denied me. Since then the computer industry
has taken off, in a way that couldn't have been predicted, whilst the
older chemical industry, which apparently needed industrial chemists,
has down sized.
Of course all this only becomes apparent with experience, but at the
time I had no choice but to trust those I thought knew better. The
point is someone else's prediction for an individual can never match
the expectations a person has for himself. The Behavouralist would
seek to make that a science. Committees determining the future for
their unsuspecting charges.
> Okay, here I would have a definite problem with this kind of control.
> But NOT because it's control, rather because I would argue the
> consequences would be ultimately non-beneficial to society. (hey,
> though! thats sounds like something new to argue about on this
> newsgroup! I'm sure others would take the other side... we call it,
> ehhhh, the ethics of "life-engineering", or something).
You'd have to allow room for 'cause' and 'effect', with perhaps a
look at previous and current "life-engineering".;)
alan jones
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b89gp3$17i$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> It's alright with me. Some I've chatted with before calls it "RIPing".
> RIP is an acronym I can't recall, but it works -- especially if a
> conversation is getting long, and going off on tangents.
Cute ;)
> > abdicate from thought, seems to be something of a trend. A trend
> > I would suggest, that comes out of the culture.
>
> as long as we may agree that "understanding", or "understanding
> nature", is not beyond or above nature.
This broad view of nature, would render the word meaningless since
there is nothing to distinguish it from anything else. The interpretation
of nature that gives it meaning is that which allows for something to
be man-made, unnatural, or not of nature. Still its ok so long as we
share the same definitions, anyone else happening on this exchange
does like wise.
> >
> > Of course everything takes place within nature. The best and the worst
> > of mankind extends out of nature, the motions of the planet, the actions
> > of stars. Indeed everything one imagines now and in the future, takes
> > place in nature. So what is the point of using nature to make any kind of
> > point. It's like saying we all breath. The fact that we exist, in a system
> > we call nature, does not excuse us seeing the actions of man, on man.
>
> I agree; though often, people tend to see man, and his consciousness, as
> something that is beyond nature -- as if man is somehow mysteriously not
> completely subject to its laws because he "understands" some of its laws.
> Notice that man-made things are said to be not "natural". Most people
> seem to talk and think that man is somehow separted from nature, somehow
> apart from it, somehow greater than it because man talks and reasons.
> Man is implied to be something "special" when compared to the cruel and
> unreasoned mother nature. This view does not perplex me; rather it affords
> me humor with a bitter edge.
>
> You have observed in your own experience what I'm talking about?
You could say that... but back on this distinction between man and the
rest of nature. Isn't it fair to make the point that a particular object or
event might not have occurred but for intelligent behaviour, and therefore
isn't of nature. If one were looking to space for signs of Intelligence,
wouldn't we be looking for something that was not of nature? One
needs some means of making that distinction. Maybe its enough to say
Intelligent or not. And yet there are times when our behaviour follows
nature and has little to do with intelligence.
One might observe the behaviour of an ant, or some larger creature
as intelligent, Or maybe the point is made by observing what man
has in common with the rest of nature. And noting, it is that which
allows us to say man is of nature.
> > > > If the information on which [those] decisions are made, is squewed
Maybe it takes the longer term view to see the necessity of these
short term inefficiencies. A question of scale. Its typical of man
to formulate models that allow him to see what he wants to see.
A behavoralist, charting hundreds, thousands even millions, will
observe their similarities. The statistics collated will iron out the
minor differences of behaviour, even though its those minor
difference that distinguishes one as unique. Any trend towards
greater efficiencies would have to acknowledge that uniformity
isn't a desirable human trait, however much the military or
industrial mind might see it so.
> >
Ok, I restate my point. In a normal group a particular mannerism
might find favour and be amplified, by being repeated and
remembered. What if a new type of behaviour were introduced to
the group without the group making a choice as to its favorability?
Something covertly forced on mass onto the group, to be later
adopted and practised. What if this thing, was the very example
of covert / subliminal manipulation. Which then spread through
the group in the manner described.
On a one to one basis, it might despised or soon lose favour,
the critical mass needed to make it a permanent part of the
group would never be reached. However, on mass it becomes
a new language, a new way to conduct ourselves. In other words,
borrowing from the Language analogy, its like a population
suddenly discovering a new word like Waaattttttzzzzzzuuuuup.
Only this has a behavioural aspect to it, that could not have
been assimilated in any other way than via the use of the media.
>
> You could dismiss the implications of that, as we in
> > our time set a direction which the future has little choose but to
> > follow. You could if you like, call it Nature and then close your
> > mind to the implication to our social interactions.
> >
> > The crucial thing to note, is that the feed back which might
> > determine if this direction was beneficial would be corrupted
> > by this very direction of coercive control.
> >
> > As a typical pragmatist, you accept it. I, on the other hand,
> > see it clearly enough to want to question it. I am speaking of
> > a particular form of psychology spreading and persisting like
> > language. Like language the root cause would soon be lost.
> >
> > > The idea of information and free-will is a romanticised
> > > Quixote-like illusion. This is not to deny the mystery of the
> > > quality of our feelings and emotions, yet in the same stroke
> > > it is to deny the culdesac of dualistic terminology embedded
> > > in the language that we both use, yet use in different manners.
> >
> > === Free-Will ===
> >
> > So you have no value for free-will?
>
> none whatsoever
Or you have an higher expectation for free-will ;)
> > Maybe free-will is simply the ability to ask, 'how' and 'why'. If
> > Man ever finds a way to remove that, then we would truly be
> > without free-will.
>
> we don't need "free-will" to ask these questions or find their
> answers.
I would suggest that a question is asked because there is percived
a need for an answer. Not all questions that can be asked, are
asked. For example, rather than ask,' why is this system better than
that other', you might just accept that it is.
> > Or is it that the ideas that says there is no free-will, also allows
> > the 'will' to be constraint?
>
> "ideas", i.e., habits of the functioning brain. the only contraint is the
> "contraint" of nature. the only chains are those of cause-effect. it
> doesn't matter what your brain's habits are, the world is as it is, and
> we are not free of nature -- and we are not of free-will.
Its seem you are back in that, mode again. Where man is concerned,
we are of nature, contributing to nature. If nature constrains us, then
we play our part collectively in constraining ourselves. You yourself
make the point that we are indivisible from nature. As for the chains
of cause and effect, it doesn't take that much for the chain to be
broken and for us to be divorced from cause, and only see a chain
of unavoidable/inescapable/predetermined/???? effects. You talk of
the individual brain as if we existed in isolation, collectively it does
matter.
As for the world is as it is.... this is barely worthy of thought. But
as you say, you have no free-will, yours is not to question or make
sense, just to accept.
> > Another functionary, easily promoted because it chimes with the
Would you deny the role nurture plays in determining outcome? Would
you deny the role culture has in our expressions, or what we deem
acceptable? '...Naturally selected biology'??
We are creatures of behaviour being shaped by culture. A culture
that takes us in particular directions. The attitudes we say, are that
of at variant, and determines a sociopath, will in another age become
accepted as the norm, common place because the same values are
shared by all. This is about what is considered acceptable.
I think you confuse what we have in common with nature, with what
we don't have in common. Nature is without an idea of culture,
changing rapidly from one generation to the next. The habits we see
in nature, are hardwired passed on through DNA. Man has another
level of information, which changes rapidly and play's its part in
affecting behaviour.
>
> >
> > It wasn't that long ago that a culture arose which promoted the most
> > psychotic of its 'gentlemen', for that aspect of their character, That
> > state came into being as a result of a general air lawlessness, where the
> > only thing that matter was control at any cost. What would it take to
> > find ourselves back in that state? In that time we could look elsewhere
> > for an example of better. What happens when one can't find that
> > example elsewhere?
>
> See, you have difficulty seperating "control", as a functional description
> of events -- from "control", as a coercive means toward debauchery and
> immorality. You hear "control" -- you can't stop yourself from thinking the
> worst. Even if the worst is about as possible as Freddie Cruger jumping out
> of your tv screen and hacking you to peices with his culinary glove. (I
> didn't know what else to call his glove with the knives on it ;))
This thread was not about the esoteric value we give the idea of control,
it was about the interplay between culture and psychology, and the way
that both culture and psychology [is made to] swings at pivotal moment
in man's history. Towards the end, the thread became concerned with the
means that bring about that shift of psychology and the persistence of
media, that would slow or prevent the necessary swing in psychology.
The coercive nature of control is central to the point being made, how
despite ourselves we are persuaded to hold one opinion over another.
Trust me, my particular stance on coercive control has nothing to do with
a lack of control on my part. I speak because I perceive a need to speak.
A need for understanding, that which we take for granted. This is an
attempt to create language that might allow feelings to be expressed.
If I can find an on-line source, I just might do that. In any case I asked
about intentions, because often we adapt to ideas without taking account
that beyond science, an idea might be formulated with a preconceived
intent. I.E an attitude it creates in those receptive to the idea.
> >
Do you recall the Stanford experiment.... Do you recall how easy it was
to have decent human beings [as opposed to sociopaths] change. Well
science has moved on a pace. You might laugh at my concern, but
remember we are separated by culture, experience and understanding.
>
> >
I think you'll find there a limit to how much the culture expects, or wants
people to question. Look about you, about the only place you'll find open
and questioning minds are the sciences and the arts. That's perhaps that's
an overstatement, but the level of questioning which takes nothing for
granted, might soon find it, wasn't a functionary of society's chosen path.
See my other post 'Nurturing the Question in the young'
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Nurturing+the+%27Question%27+in+the+young.&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C2507DF.A505BAD%40freeuk.com&r
num=1
>
> >
Chad L
> > > > > > Humans are not and will never be outside, above, or beyond the
> > > > > > laws of nature. They will always take the path of least
resistance
> > > > > > available to them and obtain the most gain available -- no
matter
> > > > > > what is learned, no matter what is applied, no matter what is
> > > > > > "controlled". (which btw., note that "control" is never a
one-way
> > > > > > imposition, rather it is always a two-way interaction).
> > > > >
> >
> >
> > > === Responsible control =====
> > >
> > > So our models are outdated, and so abruptly we adopt something
> > > that at variance to our natural symbiotic links to our being. Consider
> > > what is meant by a model. We analyse a working system, develop
> > > ideas on how it works and then use those ideas as a pattern to create
> > > our own systems. Taking that to be your idea of model, You might
> > > say we need to revisit the sources on which the model is based, find
> > > another understanding of nature, that works.
> > >
> > > Nature is far from efficient. One could make a case for necessary
> > > inefficiencies, in which case 'responsible control' would not mean
> > > the same as 'efficient control'.
> >
> > thats true, if the inefficiencies truly are necessary.
>
> Maybe it takes the longer term view to see the necessity of these
> short term inefficiencies. A question of scale. Its typical of man
> to formulate models that allow him to see what he wants to see.
> A behavoralist, charting hundreds, thousands even millions, will
> observe their similarities. The statistics collated will iron out the
> minor differences of behaviour, even though its those minor
> difference that distinguishes one as unique. Any trend towards
> greater efficiencies would have to acknowledge that uniformity
> isn't a desirable human trait, however much the military or
> industrial mind might see it so.
Well, if you imagine that behaviorists argue for uniformity, then I must say
you have a wild imagination. Little could be further from the truth.
Things are as they are, and uniformity is not always necessary for
efficiency. As far as anyone can tell, it may be that the military's
uniformity will become inefficient. If I didn't know better, I'd say you'd
have behaviorists behind a great factory, where the poor slaves of humanity
would be toiling away at their monotonous jobs on the line -- day in and day
out. Well, it just doesn't work that way. At any rate, of course what
appears to be inefficient to some, is in reality very efficient. I've seen
classrooms in which the kids are all up and out of their seats, running
around, talking etc. -- at first glance it looks like chaos -- but upon
closer inspection we find that the goals of learning are being met at record
levels. When goals are met as quickly and accurately as possible -- I call
this "efficiency" -- uniformity be damned.
It happens, all the time. everyday. its imbedded in the very language you
use. You only fear what you do not know, even though it happens all the
time, all throughout history.
> Something covertly forced on mass onto the group, to be later
> adopted and practised. What if this thing, was the very example
> of covert / subliminal manipulation. Which then spread through
> the group in the manner described.
as long as it did not result in harm or loss of joy, who would complain?
> On a one to one basis, it might despised or soon lose favour,
what is "it"? what you imagine cannot be a universal truth. You have to
judge "it" (the subliminal message, etc.) based on the consequences of its
employment.
> the critical mass needed to make it a permanent part of the
> group would never be reached. However, on mass it becomes
> a new language, a new way to conduct ourselves. In other words,
> borrowing from the Language analogy, its like a population
> suddenly discovering a new word like Waaattttttzzzzzzuuuuup.
> Only this has a behavioural aspect to it, that could not have
> been assimilated in any other way than via the use of the media.
you're going to have to a lot more specific. right now, you're just fearing
the unknown and undefined without thinking it through.
> > You could dismiss the implications of that, as we in
> > > our time set a direction which the future has little choose but to
> > > follow. You could if you like, call it Nature and then close your
> > > mind to the implication to our social interactions.
> > >
> > > The crucial thing to note, is that the feed back which might
> > > determine if this direction was beneficial would be corrupted
> > > by this very direction of coercive control.
> > >
> > > As a typical pragmatist, you accept it. I, on the other hand,
> > > see it clearly enough to want to question it. I am speaking of
> > > a particular form of psychology spreading and persisting like
> > > language. Like language the root cause would soon be lost.
> > >
> > > > The idea of information and free-will is a romanticised
> > > > Quixote-like illusion. This is not to deny the mystery of the
> > > > quality of our feelings and emotions, yet in the same stroke
> > > > it is to deny the culdesac of dualistic terminology embedded
> > > > in the language that we both use, yet use in different manners.
> > >
> > > === Free-Will ===
> > >
> > > So you have no value for free-will?
> >
> > none whatsoever
>
> Or you have an higher expectation for free-will ;)
I thought "none whatsoever" would be taken unequivocally.
> > > Maybe free-will is simply the ability to ask, 'how' and 'why'. If
> > > Man ever finds a way to remove that, then we would truly be
> > > without free-will.
> >
> > we don't need "free-will" to ask these questions or find their
> > answers.
>
> I would suggest that a question is asked because there is percived
> a need for an answer.
most of the time.
Not all questions that can be asked, are
> asked. For example, rather than ask,' why is this system better than
> that other', you might just accept that it is.
I think that is question that should be applied to most systems, if not all
systems.
>
> > > Or is it that the ideas that says there is no free-will, also allows
> > > the 'will' to be constraint?
> >
> > "ideas", i.e., habits of the functioning brain. the only contraint is
the
> > "contraint" of nature. the only chains are those of cause-effect. it
> > doesn't matter what your brain's habits are, the world is as it is, and
> > we are not free of nature -- and we are not of free-will.
>
> Its seem you are back in that, mode again. Where man is concerned,
> we are of nature, contributing to nature. If nature constrains us, then
> we play our part collectively in constraining ourselves. You yourself
> make the point that we are indivisible from nature. As for the chains
> of cause and effect, it doesn't take that much for the chain to be
> broken and for us to be divorced from cause, and only see a chain
> of unavoidable/inescapable/predetermined/???? effects. You talk of
> the individual brain as if we existed in isolation, collectively it does
> matter.
>
> As for the world is as it is.... this is barely worthy of thought. But
> as you say, you have no free-will, yours is not to question or make
> sense, just to accept.
don't let your emotions prevent you from seeing the other side of things
(like I did some years back when arguing so vehemently for free-will). Mine
is to accept, correct. But part of that acceptance includes accepting that
I will always seek to question and make sense. When I say the world is as
it is, I am not saying that it cannot or should not change, I'm just saying
that if it changes in a certain way -- we should not think of it as
"unnatural". For example, if a sociopath, like Charles Manson is born, and
kills for the sake of it -- we need not see his behavior as unnatural or
inhuman, loading him up with a ton of labels that seek to explain, but in
reality do not. No, we simply need to stop his behavior -- and let science
explain why he is as he is. We need not torture him, or threaten him with
eternal hell, as if he is some sort of monster. We simply need to stop him.
No determinist will watch an event, say that it is determined, then just
close their eyes and fall asleep. If change occurs, it is determined. If
the event demands action, action will be taken -- accept that.
Not at all. In fact, nurture is subsumed under nature. Nurture is also
naturally selected over an organisms history and species history.
> We are creatures of behaviour being shaped by culture. A culture
> that takes us in particular directions.
very true.
The attitudes we say, are that
> of at variant, and determines a sociopath, will in another age become
> accepted as the norm, common place because the same values are
> shared by all. This is about what is considered acceptable.
do you really think a society of sociopaths would survive long? pahleese,
if the other societies didn't wipe them out, then they'd simply wipe
themselves out. sorry, in general our genes want to survive more than they
want to kill.
>
> I think you confuse what we have in common with nature, with what
> we don't have in common. Nature is without an idea of culture,
> changing rapidly from one generation to the next. The habits we see
> in nature, are hardwired passed on through DNA. Man has another
> level of information, which changes rapidly and play's its part in
> affecting behaviour.
I somewhat agree with what you are saying, up until the confusion part. I
believe that it is not that I am confused on this point, but rather that my
education about this exceeds your experience on that point. I don't want to
sound snobbish, but as a matter of fact, that is most likely the case.
sounds good!
> > Listen, I see that you're either from Canada or Europe or Austrailia
(its
> > the way you spell). Now, I know in Europe the book "1984" created
> > a huge hype. But if people understood behavior a little better, they'd
> > hardly get so excited.
>
> Do you recall the Stanford experiment.... Do you recall how easy it was
> to have decent human beings [as opposed to sociopaths] change. Well
> science has moved on a pace. You might laugh at my concern, but
> remember we are separated by culture, experience and understanding.
Same with Nazi germany. but again, uniformity of this degree is hardly the
most efficient way to run things. Had the nazi empire succeeded in its
goals of world domination and the eradication of all those _different_. It
would have nothing left to do but eat itself alive in an inefficient system
of control based mainly on coercion.
Of course! there is opposition abound. Like the saying goes, "the only
change people like is the kind that jingles in their pockets."
Look about you, about the only place you'll find open
> and questioning minds are the sciences and the arts. That's perhaps that's
> an overstatement, but the level of questioning which takes nothing for
> granted, might soon find it, wasn't a functionary of society's chosen
path.
thats a possibility. but we won't know unless people like you and I
continue to push for questioning minds. Of course no bureaucracy is going
to like it -- fuck'm! Hell, even here in america there is no such thing as
a philosophy course in highschool (g, I wonder why?). I find the world
reallly exciting, Alan, because there seems to be soo much more room for
improvement. Imagine how dull it would be if there were no challenges,
i.e., if the world was a perfect utopia without opposition. No, we have
something to do here, important somethings. So now tell me what you are
going to do (or are doing) to open the curiousity and questioning of young
minds?
Chad L
but its never really "less free", rather its only under the control of
different stimuli. (note: some stimuli are preferable to other stimuli).
>
> Why we chose one thing over another, has much to do with 'the
> moment' and how the stimuli that occurs in the moment, interacts or
> plays against the body of experience we've acquired. For example,
> lets say I have a choice of several words, each of those words might
> be understood with different connotations. If something in 'the
> moment' happens to stimulate a path into one of those connotations,
> or else a residual memory has a path into one of those word
> connotations, it might inadvertately lead me to choose one word
> over the others.
>
> You could say we are mechanistic at a neural level, but given the
> stuff we are composed of, it could be no other way. What really
> distinguishes us, are our experiences. The complex individual is
> shaped by the verity of experiences he acquires, limit that to the
> same set of shared experiences and you create beings of largely
> predictable or deterministic behaviour.
well, predictability can be rather boring can't it?
well, my immediate emotional reaction is to say that we should fight against
such injustice. unless the conclusion is the correct one. (e.g., we have
come to the conclusion that we may no longer murder each other).
>
> > > coercion, forces all ideas towards a point of convergence.
> > > Sometimes we can see this, most cases we can't. If you were being
> > > coercively controlled how would you know?
> >
> > You would know if you sought to avoid or escape such an interaction.
>
> But how would you know there was any such coercion to escape from
> or to. You would have just one perception, that which seemed common
> place. Coercion might imperceptible unless you had a mind to formulate
> ideas that took you into the apparently absurd, and you then sought to
> test those formulation against the 'real world'. Its likely that most
people
> would just continue with the status quo. Unaware of the quali of blue,
> until told by one who had suddenly gained sight.
thats another reason why its important that everyone get a behavioral
education.
>
> Imagine you were one of those characters in the Matrix, no not the
> heroes, but the drones living imagined lives. How would you know?
> Could you as a drone begin to conceive of a life beyond the apparent?
> And yet it is possible that generations of coercion could lead one into
> accepting such a state, where the boundaries between the published
> truth, and the actual truth were imperceptive to us. You in your corner,
> I in mind ;)
good one.
>
> > Still though, not all coercion is bad either. We cannot judge good or
> > bad based on the mere fact of whether control is coercive or not; rather
> > we must also observe the consequences of such actions or "control".
> > If your child starts to put a fork in the light switch, and you spank
the
> > crap out of him for it, then who can rightfully say that this coercive
> > control is wrong when the child's life will be saved? (as it will be
> > muuuch less likely to bring a fork or anything else towards a light
> > socket).
>
> You speak as I imagine a coercive might, if he were trying to convince
> himself there were merit to his practice of coercion;) Seriously though,
> lets say that I *wanted* to slap that child. What if I made it possible
for
> the child to endanger itself, by locking it in a room with nothing in it,
> but a light socket and a fork. Lets say I justified this by saying I
wanted
> to teach the child a lesson. A lesson it might learn fatally were I not
there.
> I might create this scenario of danger, then allow the child to come close
> to endangering itself, before I delivered that pivotal chastisement. The
> child might be hurt in the sort term, but the longer term consequence
> would hopefully mean the child's safety was assured.
>
> You might say this was justified coercion.... Only life is not like that
;-/
silly rabitt, you have not escaped the use of coercion! you have merely
changed its form if delivery. coercion happens on a daily basis, you do
it all the time and you don't even know it! Your buddies do it to you all
the time, and you're hardly conscious of the process. And even when you
become aware of the process (as I can bring you to awareness of it), it will
hardly change anything at all! I'm thinking we ought to start a new thread
about coercion, I think other people should hear this too; glad you brought
it up.
>
> > What you seem to be concerned about is the taking away of options.
>
> Its not just the taking away of options, its the blinkers it constructs
> which forces us to see life as only one thing, its the attitude of mind it
> forces that excludes the creativity that would be natural were it not
> for these constraints. Its the production like control, that says I can't
> trust you to think for yourself.
sounds like something to fight against to me.
Above all its being shaped without
> one knowing it, to be as another expects you to be, for better or worst.
well, you have to understand that we are shaped all the time without knowing
it. thats the way it has always been and will always be. and even knowing
it does not change the fact that we are shaped all the time. However, I
presume it is better if we know it, thus I would like to see more people
educated about behavior.
>
> > Like for example government mind controllers secretly conditioning
> > select children to grow up to do select jobs. E.g., these people will
> > be doctors, these will be lawyers, these will trashmen, and they will
> > know of no other options in their lifetimes.
>
> You can laugh ;) But I recall being shunted into doing Chemistry, a
> subject I wasn't at all suited to, let alone interested in. My preference
> for computers study was denied me. Since then the computer industry
> has taken off, in a way that couldn't have been predicted, whilst the
> older chemical industry, which apparently needed industrial chemists,
> has down sized.
>
> Of course all this only becomes apparent with experience, but at the
> time I had no choice but to trust those I thought knew better. The
> point is someone else's prediction for an individual can never match
> the expectations a person has for himself. The Behavouralist would
> seek to make that a science. Committees determining the future for
> their unsuspecting charges.
well, I don't know any behaviouralists, and its obvious to me that you don't
either. I also doubt that you know any behaviorists -- because if you did,
you'd know that science they study is human/animal behavior. The control,
the coercion, the postive and negative reinforcement, the unconscious
conditioning? its all there, with or withOUT the science. the science
merely studys it. If you want to know how to build a better aeroplane, you
study the science of physics. IF you want to know how to build a better
community (and believe me, its got a lot of room for improvement), you study
the science of behavior. I have a feeling that our definition of what is
"better" is probably very similiar. However, our methods for acheiving the
same goals are probably different -- as mine are based on a hard empirical
science.
>
> > Okay, here I would have a definite problem with this kind of control.
> > But NOT because it's control, rather because I would argue the
> > consequences would be ultimately non-beneficial to society. (hey,
> > though! thats sounds like something new to argue about on this
> > newsgroup! I'm sure others would take the other side... we call it,
> > ehhhh, the ethics of "life-engineering", or something).
>
> You'd have to allow room for 'cause' and 'effect', with perhaps a
> look at previous and current "life-engineering".;)
yeah, I'm not sure why you keep getting hung up on this cause and effect
thing. Look I didn't say that cause and effect isn't a fact of life, I
merely said that the fact is that we cannot directly observe it and that its
dangerous to make post hoc conclusions, so we use "functional relationships"
to describe what we see -- rather than inferring a cause that we cannot
observe (though is probably there).
alan jones
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b8busn$krl$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:tjcqa.768$rA3...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > [-reposted with grammatical corrections-]
> >
> > Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:b89iih$31r$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > news:105121174...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Btw way I see a difference between 'influence' and 'control'?
> > > > >
> > > > > yes, people _sometimes_ use it differently. However, I can see
> > > > > no functional difference. Some use control in a negative sense
> > > > > in some contexts and then use the same word positively in other
> > > > > contexts; the same is true of "influence".
> > > >
> > > > Will I see Control as fitting a deterministic model of behaviour,
> > > > Influence allows for choice in what we find influential. In networking
> > > > influences would be the many possible paths all having equal [?)]
> > > > weight, which might or may not affect out come. Control on the
> > > > other has many more paths converging, hence control.
> > >
> > > right. control does just that. but it also allows for choice. However,
> > > control seeks to describe what is generally thought to cause one to
> > > make a that choice. I agree that we make choices; now, what causes
> > > us to make one choice over another?
> > >
> > > I know some will answer that question by using the word "free-will",
> > > but I would contest that answer as an insufficient folk explanation of
> > > they are jubilant to return to their mother earth.
> >
> > Your idea of the 'free-will' is much like my idea of 'the soul'. Even so
> > I do say we have free-will, in as much as that Will, can be made less
> > free.
>
> but its never really "less free", rather its only under the control of
> different stimuli. (note: some stimuli are preferable to other stimuli).
>
>
> >
> > Why we chose one thing over another, has much to do with 'the
> > moment' and how the stimuli that occurs in the moment, interacts or
> > plays against the body of experience we've acquired. For example,
> > lets say I have a choice of several words, each of those words might
> > be understood with different connotations. If something in 'the
> > moment' happens to stimulate a path into one of those connotations,
> > or else a residual memory has a path into one of those word
> > over the others.
> >
> > You could say we are mechanistic at a neural level, but given the
> > stuff we are composed of, it could be no other way. What really
> > distinguishes us, are our experiences. The complex individual is
> > shaped by the verity of experiences he acquires, limit that to the
> > same set of shared experiences and you create beings of largely
> > predictable or deterministic behaviour.
>
> well, predictability can be rather boring can't it?
Yes, but boring to whom? predictability might also free you to indulge
your imagination. A constant meter against which we find new ways to
love. Its possible to be so busy, so much in the now, we have no time
to listen to ourselves.
> > > > > > That said control as a point of discussion 'Control' is too
> > > > > > open, to have one person presume the nature of control
> > > > > > being discussed. My specific points earlier were on
> > > > > > coercive control,
> > > > >
> > > > > I had assumed that was what you meant. I was using it in the
> > > > > broader sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > > acknowledging that a level of control is necessary, but seeing
> > > > > > coercive control as a culdesac that threatens the very meaning
> > > > > > of understanding.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure I understand the meaning of "understanding". :)
> > > >
> > > > Well its not associative, or based on [simple] memory, I would say
> > > > its based on inference, an internal model we build that allows us to
> > > > form an idea of the cases beyond the range of memory.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This may seem counterintuitive -- but the more a man learns,
> > > > > > > the more he is controlled (and the more he controls).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your right it does seem counterintuitive. If a man learnt nothing,
> > > > > > not even language, would he have greater control?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, he would have less control -- he would be both controlled
> > > > > less, and have less control. Yes, all of his actions would be
> > > > > controlled but only by very simple things; whereas the man
> > > > > who learns is controlled by and controls many more complex
> > > > > things. For example the man who cannot read is under no control
> > > > > of anything in a book, or street signs, etc..; whereas a man who
> thats another reason why its important that everyone get a behavioural
> education.
Agreed!!
> > Imagine you were one of those characters in the Matrix, no not the
> > heroes, but the drones living imagined lives. How would you know?
> > Could you as a drone begin to conceive of a life beyond the apparent?
> > And yet it is possible that generations of coercion could lead one into
> > accepting such a state, where the boundaries between the published
> > truth, and the actual truth were imperceptive to us. You in your corner,
> > I in mind ;)
>
> good one.
>
> >
> > > Still though, not all coercion is bad either. We cannot judge good
> > > or bad based on the mere fact of whether control is coercive or not;
> > > rather we must also observe the consequences of such actions or
> > > "control". If your child starts to put a fork in the light switch, and
> > > you spank the crap out of him for it, then who can rightfully say that
> > > this coercive control is wrong when the child's life will be saved? (as
> > > it will be muuuch less likely to bring a fork or anything else towards
> > > a light socket).
> >
> > You speak as I imagine a coercive might, if he were trying to convince
> > himself there were merit to his practice of coercion;) Seriously though,
> > lets say that I *wanted* to slap that child. What if I made it possible
> > for the child to endanger itself, by locking it in a room with nothing in
> > but a light socket and a fork. Lets say I justified this by saying I
> > wanted to teach the child a lesson. A lesson it might learn fatally were
> > I not there. I might create this scenario of danger, then allow the child
> > to come close to endangering itself, before I delivered that pivotal
> > chastisement. The child might be hurt in the sort term, but the longer
> > term consequence would hopefully mean the child's safety was assured.
> >
> > You might say this was justified coercion.... Only life is not like that
> > ;-/
>
> silly rabitt, you have not escaped the use of coercion! you have merely
> changed its form if delivery. coercion happens on a daily basis, you do
> it all the time and you don't even know it! Your buddies do it to you all
> the time, and you're hardly conscious of the process. And even when
> you become aware of the process (as I can bring you to awareness of it),
> it will hardly change anything at all! I'm thinking we ought to start a new
> thread about coercion, I think other people should hear this too; glad you
> brought it up.
>
> >
> > > What you seem to be concerned about is the taking away of options.
> >
> > Its not just the taking away of options, its the blinkers it constructs
> > which forces us to see life as only one thing, its the attitude of mind
> > it forces that excludes the creativity that would be natural were it not
> > for these constraints. Its the production like control, that says I can't
> > trust you to think for yourself.
>
> sounds like something to fight against to me.
Or better yet, to educate against.....
> > Above all its being shaped without one knowing it, to be as another
> > expects you to be, for better or worst.
>
> well, you have to understand that we are shaped all the time without
> knowing it. thats the way it has always been and will always be. and
> even knowing it does not change the fact that we are shaped all the
> time. However, I presume it is better if we know it, thus I would like
> to see more people educated about behaviour.
Of course the knowledge might come at a cost. Would seeing clearly
mean we see too much?
In another place I had the following thought:
One way would be to have lessons, within the state curriculum,
on good parenting, paying particular attention to the child
psychology of that first year ( to five years) of a child's life,
the role of memory and the influences that lead to healthy
development. The converse would also be true, namely the
influences that produce unhealthy development, e.g. the media.
Such lessons would have the two fold advantage of introducing
good practice to those brought up in differing circumstances,
it would also enable those being taught to learn something about
the way we acquire knowledge / skills. [it might also introduce
the connection to the media, external influences, and personal
psychology ]
> >
> > > Like for example government mind controllers secretly conditioning
> > > select children to grow up to do select jobs. E.g., these people will
> > > be doctors, these will be lawyers, these will trashmen, and they will
> > > know of no other options in their lifetimes.
> >
> > You can laugh ;) But I recall being shunted into doing Chemistry, a
> > subject I wasn't at all suited to, let alone interested in. My preference
> > for computers study was denied me. Since then the computer industry
> > has taken off, in a way that couldn't have been predicted, whilst the
> > older chemical industry, which apparently needed industrial chemists,
> > has down sized.
> >
> > Of course all this only becomes apparent with experience, but at the
> > time I had no choice but to trust those I thought knew better. The
> > point is someone else's prediction for an individual can never match
> > the expectations a person has for himself. The Behavouralist would
> > seek to make that a science. Committees determining the future for
> > their unsuspecting charges.
>
> well, I don't know any behaviouralists, and its obvious to me that you
> don't either. I also doubt that you know any behaviourists -- because if
> you did, you'd know that science they study is human/animal behaviour.
> The control, the coercion, the positive and negative reinforcement, the
> unconscious conditioning? its all there, with or withOUT the science.
> the science merely studys it. If you want to know how to build a better
> aeroplane,you study the science of physics. IF you want to know how
> to build a better community (and believe me, its got a lot of room for
> improvement), you study the science of behaviour. I have a feeling that
> our definition of what is "better" is probably very similar. However,
> our methods for achieving the same goals are probably different -- as
> mine are based on a hard empirical science.
You have in mind a science without an application, I on the other
hand find myself observing the application of that science. What do
you know of a cluster bomb. The only people who understand that
technology are those that make and use it, and those upon whom
the bomb falls. The rest of us see the label and say we understand.
I speak as one at the thin end, at its focus, seeing and understanding.
I share your desire for a "better community", I also recognise that
knowledge, regardless of the source, can be used to exploit ignorance,
as well as share an advantage.
> >
> > > Okay, here I would have a definite problem with this kind of
> > > control But NOT because it's control, rather because I would
> > > argue the consequences would be ultimately non-beneficial to
> > > society. (hey, though! thats sounds like something new to argue
> > > about on this newsgroup! I'm sure others would take the other
> > > side... we call it, ehhhh, the ethics of "life-engineering", or
> > > something).
> >
> > You'd have to allow room for 'cause' and 'effect', with perhaps a
> > look at previous and current "life-engineering".;)
>
> yeah, I'm not sure why you keep getting hung up on this cause and
> effect thing. Look I didn't say that cause and effect isn't a fact of
> life, I merely said that the fact is that we cannot directly observe it
> and that its dangerous to make post hoc conclusions, so we use
> "functional relationships" to describe what we see -- rather than
> inferring a cause that we cannot observe (though is probably there).
How about inferring that human nature, such as we know it, is
consistent across time. And using that as a way into cause and
effect -- history.
You know the movement of Deconstructionalism had amongst other
things, the purpose of tracing these now forgotten causes or intentions.
Even without tracing; cause and effect, intention and meaning; there
was the idea that meaning changes with time and context. Its an idea
I find I take when observing the culture. Each and every aspect of the
culture has a reason for being, a functionary part it plays, which
often belies its current context of entertainment.
alan jones
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b8btfm$b2h$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "alan jones" <o...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:Bjcqa.769$rA3...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> > >
> > > I agree; though often, people tend to see man, and his consciousness,
> > > as something that is beyond nature -- as if man is somehow mysteriously
> > > not completely subject to its laws because he "understands" some of its
> > > laws. Notice that man-made things are said to be not "natural". Most
> > > somehow apart from it, somehow greater than it because man talks and
> > > reasons. Man is implied to be something "special" when compared to
> > > the cruel and unreasoned mother nature. This view does not perplex
> > > > which the model is based, find another understanding of nature,
> > > > that works.
> > > >
> > > > Nature is far from efficient. One could make a case for necessary
> > > > inefficiencies, in which case 'responsible control' would not mean
> > > > the same as 'efficient control'.
> > >
> > > thats true, if the inefficiencies truly are necessary.
> >
> > Maybe it takes the longer term view to see the necessity of these
> > short term inefficiencies. A question of scale. Its typical of man
> > to formulate models that allow him to see what he wants to see.
> > A behavoralist, charting hundreds, thousands even millions, will
> > observe their similarities. The statistics collated will iron out the
> > minor differences of behaviour, even though its those minor
> > greater efficiencies would have to acknowledge that uniformity
> > isn't a desirable human trait, however much the military or
> > industrial mind might see it so.
>
> I must say you have a wild imagination. Little could be further
> from the truth. Things are as they are, and uniformity is not
> always necessary for efficiency. As far as anyone can tell, it may
> be that the military's uniformity will become inefficient. If I didn't
> where the poor slaves of humanity would be toiling away at their
> monotonous jobs on the line -- day in and day out. Well, it just
> doesn't work that way. At any rate, of course what appears to be
> inefficient to some, is in reality very efficient. I've seen classrooms
> in which the kids are all up and out of their seats, running around,
> talking etc. -- at first glance it looks like chaos -- but upon closer
> inspection we find that the goals of learning are being met at record
> levels. When goals are met as quickly and accurately as possible
> -- I call this "efficiency" -- uniformity be damned.
The simple answer would be to say, that anything man considers
efficient will tend towards uniformity, the two terms, efficient and
uniformity are virtually synonymous.
I don't say that Behaviourist would start with this objective, but
it would follow as a consequence of their actions. Were they to
move beyond observations and documentation, and into the realm
of proscribing, influencing behaviour, uniformity would not be
far behind. Even now one has to wonder if we aren't already more
uniform than we were. Its rare that man looks to create complexity,
let alone complex behaviour. That approach would require
individual modelling of behaviour. Instead you will have a situation
where a few, address the many. The results will be this trend
towards uniformity.
On your class room example, the class room environment might
differ, but considered as a whole we are informed by the same
subject matter at largely the same time in our lives. From nursery
school, to primary school and beyond, Education follows a
universal model. The other lessons about relating to the group
also follows along the same predictably managed paths. Which
means there is, even if we can't see it, a measure of uniformity.
Yes, I am all to aware of the way language mocks as it connects us.
My point is to make that control explicit, not just something we fall
into, but something we attempt to understand. My point is to make
known the new forms waiting to follow the same path. The steps
taken in the short term, will have an effect reaching into the long
term. The attempted use of language to target a few, has a 'friendly
fire' effect that is barely quantified. Just because one grows use
to a thing doesn't mean it has no influence.
> > Something covertly forced on mass onto the group, to be later
> > adopted and practised. What if this thing, was the very example
> > of covert / subliminal manipulation. Which then spread through
> > the group in the manner described.
>
> as long as it did not result in harm or loss of joy, who would
> complain?
Who would know if Joy were lost, when those able to comprehend
change are silent, and those born into the new circumstance see it
as normal.
> > On a one to one basis, it might despised or soon lose favour,
>
> what is "it"? what you imagine cannot be a universal truth. You
> have to judge "it" (the subliminal message, etc.) based on the
> consequences of its employment.
That's the short term view, the expedient view that fits the model
of functionalism. The longer term view would acknowledge that
it is much harder to switch off a behaviour [or the use of language],
once it is set into being. Consequence is long lasting.
> > the critical mass needed to make it a permanent part of the
> > group would never be reached. However, on mass it becomes
> > a new language, a new way to conduct ourselves. In other words,
> > borrowing from the Language analogy, its like a population
> > suddenly discovering a new word like Waaattttttzzzzzzuuuuup.
> > Only this has a behavioural aspect to it, that could not have
> > been assimilated in any other way than via the use of the media.
>
> you're going to have to a lot more specific. right now, you're just
> fearing the unknown and undefined without thinking it through.
I could be specific, but all I'll say is the subliminal is the unspoken
meaning that emerges out of the juxtaposition of word and image.
Unspoken, but there as sure as one can say 1 + 1 = the conclusion
we say is 'common to our senses'.
> > > You could dismiss the implications of that, as we in
> > > > our time set a direction which the future has little choose but
> > > > to follow. You could if you like, call it Nature and then close
> > > > your mind to the implication to our social interactions.
> > > >
> > > > The crucial thing to note, is that the feed back which might
> > > > determine if this direction was beneficial would be corrupted
> > > > by this very direction of coercive control.
> > > >
> > > > As a typical pragmatist, you accept it. I, on the other hand,
> > > > see it clearly enough to want to question it. I am speaking of
> > > > a particular form of psychology spreading and persisting like
> > > > language. Like language the root cause would soon be lost.
> > > >
> > > > > The idea of information and free-will is a romanticised
> > > > > Quixote-like illusion. This is not to deny the mystery of the
> > > > > quality of our feelings and emotions, yet in the same stroke
> > > > > it is to deny the culdesac of dualistic terminology embedded
> > > > > in the language that we both use, yet use in different manners.
> > > >
> > > > === Free-Will ===
> > > >
> > > > So you have no value for free-will?
> > >
> > > none whatsoever
> >
> > Or you have an higher expectation for free-will ;)
>
> I thought "none whatsoever" would be taken unequivocally.
The point was, that as you say you have no free-will, you must
have a definition of free-will that exceeds [y]our current state.
> > > > Maybe free-will is simply the ability to ask, 'how' and 'why'.
> > > > If Man ever finds a way to remove that, then we would truly
> > > > be without free-will.
> > >
> > > we don't need "free-will" to ask these questions or find their
> > > answers.
> >
> > I would suggest that a question is asked because there is perceived
> > a need for an answer.
>
> most of the time.
> > Not all questions that can be asked, are asked. For example, rather
> > than ask,' why is this system better than that other', you might just
> > accept that it is.
>
> I think that is question that should be applied to most systems, if not
> all systems.
True, but that example was fashioned after the way we accept our
current political systems as the best, its almost beyond question.
An opinion bordering on the Sacrosanct.
> >
> > > > Or is it that the ideas that says there is no free-will, also allows
> > > > the 'will' to be constraint?
> > >
> > > "ideas", i.e., habits of the functioning brain. the only constraint is
> > > the "constraint" of nature. the only chains are those of cause-effect.
> > > It doesn't matter what your brain's habits are, the world is as it is,
> > > and we are not free of nature -- and we are not of free-will.
> >
> > Its seem you are back in that, mode again. Where man is concerned,
> > we are of nature, contributing to nature. If nature constrains us, then
> > we play our part collectively in constraining ourselves. You yourself
> > make the point that we are indivisible from nature. As for the chains
> > of cause and effect, it doesn't take that much for the chain to be
> > broken and for us to be divorced from cause, and only see a chain
> > of unavoidable/inescapable/predetermined/???? effects. You talk of
> > the individual brain as if we existed in isolation, collectively it does
> > matter.
> >
> > As for the world is as it is.... this is barely worthy of thought. But
> > as you say, you have no free-will, yours is not to question or make
> > sense, just to accept.
>
> don't let your emotions prevent you from seeing the other side of things
> (like I did some years back when arguing so vehemently for free-will).
> Mine is to accept, correct. But part of that acceptance includes accepting
> that I will always seek to question and make sense. When I say the world
> is as it is, I am not saying that it cannot or should not change, I'm just
> saying that if it changes in a certain way -- we should not think of it as
> "unnatural".
>
> For example, if a sociopath, like Charles Manson is born, and kills for
> the sake of it -- we need not see his behaviour as unnatural or inhuman,
> loading him up with a ton of labels that seek to explain, but in reality
> do not.
This is interesting, are you saying that labels serve no purpose? That
language in this regard serves no purpose. Labels are like flags or
warnings. Its true we hid a lot behind those labels but that action
serves a purpose. Unless man changes radically so as not to need
those warnings, then I say they will continue to serve a purpose. We
are controlled / shaped by language. But I guess the point you were
making was along the lines of Nieztche. The key is habit. There's an
element of crime that is habit, or habit forming. How do we prevent
or break that cycle.
> No, we simply need to stop his behaviour -- and let science explain
> why he is as he is. We need not torture him, or threaten him with
> eternal hell, as if he is some sort of monster. We simply need to
> stop him. No determinist will watch an event, say that it is
> determined, then just close their eyes and fall asleep. If change
> occurs, it is determined. If the event demands action, action will
> be taken -- accept that.
[ Are we still talking with the language of the Instrumentalist, just asking ]
You know, all you need to do is add God to the above, for it to make
'sense',;)
We are talking about systems created and proceeded over by Man.
Fallible man, the habit forming creature prone to mistake, yet slow
to learn from those mistakes. Change only happens where there is
a will to change, it doesn't come through simple acceptance. It starts
always with the question. Look at the people who gravitate to power.
Some are concerned with the welfare of their electorate, most I
would contend, are drawn by power.
And what of culture, is that also subsumed under nature? If so
where in nature would you find the peculiar relationship of 'the
one to many'? I would suggest this relationship is peculiar to
man, peculiar to the broadcast media.
>
> > We are creatures of behaviour being shaped by culture. A
> > culture that takes us in particular directions.
>
> very true.
>
> > The attitudes we say, are that of at variant, and determines a
> > sociopath, will in another age become accepted as the norm,
> > common place because the same values are shared by all.
> > This is about what is considered acceptable.
>
> do you really think a society of sociopath would survive long?
> pahleese, if the other societies didn't wipe them out, then they'd
> simply wipe themselves out. sorry, in general our genes want to
> survive more than they want to kill.
As you mentioned Nazi Germany. One saw in that period, the
sociopath in his element. Rewarded as circumstances allows
his kind to come to the fore. In our time, even crime is shown
to play its part as functionary, so what of the sociopath? In a
warped way its could be argued that society even has a functionary
place for the serial criminal. [At least if one were to judge the
values promoted by the culture ]. Natural born, indeed.
Take a look at the worst of our history... The values which were
accepted for generations, the values we now look back on as
aberrant, or in-human. There really isn't that much to prevent
us inhabiting the same state. Nothing except our willingness to
question.
>
> > I think you confuse what we have in common with nature, with
> > what we don't have in common. Nature is without an idea of
> > culture, changing rapidly from one generation to the next. The
> > habits we see in nature, are hardwired, passed on through DNA.
> > Man has another level of information, which changes rapidly
> > and play's its part in affecting behaviour.
>
> I somewhat agree with what you are saying, up until the confusion
> part. I believe that it is not that I am confused on this point, but
> rather that my education about this exceeds your experience on
> that point. I don't want to sound snobbish, but as a matter of
> fact, that is most likely the case.
I am seeking to make a necessary distinction, one which, in a sense
agrees we are of nature, mortal, living, loving, growing. And yet unique.
Capable of sharing our experiences, sharing our doubts and certainties,
living a thousand life times through the eye of a camera, or the pages
of a book, exceeding the experience of single life. We are perhaps the
only creature capable of creating selfdoubt, destroying ourselves
though language, the only creature capable of healing with song, and
palms and scriptures. Its those extra traits that places us outside
nature, even as our mortality says, Man and nature are one.
To just see ourselves as of nature, is to for a moment, blind to
those transdental traits, and our capacity to elevate ourselves far
beyond the base instincts of nature. To just talk of nature, is to
bind ourselves forever to the many other, less sentient forms,
and be ruled like them, by laws without reason.
Even that phrase laws of nature, is an anathema. Nature as God,
as the judge non refutes. A power beyond understanding into
which we project the final word.
>
> > > > It wasn't that long ago that a culture arose which promoted
> > > > the most psychotic of its 'gentlemen', for that aspect of their
> > > > character. That state came into being as a result of a general
> > > > air lawlessness, where the only thing that matter was control
> > > > at any cost. What would it take to find ourselves back in that
> > > > state? In that time we could look elsewhere for an example
> > > > of better. What happens when one can't find that example
> > > > elsewhere?
> > >
> > > See, you have difficulty separating "control", as a functional
> > > description of events -- from "control", as a coercive means
> > > toward debauchery and immorality. You hear "control" --
> > > you can't stop yourself from thinking the worst. Even if the
> > > worst is about as possible as Freddie Cruger jumping out
> > > of your tv screen and hacking you to pieces with his culinary
> > > glove. (I didn't know what else to call his glove with the
> > > knives on it ;))
> >
> > This thread was not about the esoteric value we give the idea of
> > control, it was about the interplay between culture and psychology,
> > and the way that both culture and psychology [is made to] swings
> > at pivotal moment in man's history. Towards the end, the thread
> > became concerned with the means that bring about that shift of
> > psychology, and the persistence of media, that would slow or
> > prevent the necessary swing in psychology. The coercive nature
> > of control is central to the point being made, how despite ourselves
> > we are persuaded to hold one opinion over another. Trust me, my
> > particular stance on coercive control has nothing to do with a lack
> > of control on my part. I speak because I perceive a need to speak.
> > A need for understanding, what we now take for granted. This is
> > an attempt to create language that might allow feelings to be
> > expressed.
>
> sounds good!
>
> > > Listen, I see that you're either from Canada or Europe or Austrailia
> > > (its the way you spell). Now, I know in Europe the book "1984"
> > > created a huge hype. But if people understood behaviour a little
> > > better, they'd hardly get so excited.
> >
> > Do you recall the Stanford experiment.... Do you recall how easy it
> > was to have decent human beings [as opposed to sociopath] change.
> > Well science has moved on a pace. You might laugh at my concern,
> > but remember we are separated by culture, experience and understanding.
>
> Same with Nazi Germany. but again, uniformity of this degree is hardly
> the most efficient way to run things. Had the nazi empire succeeded in
> its goals of world domination and the eradication of all those _different_.
> It would have nothing left to do but eat itself alive in an inefficient system
> of control based mainly on coercion.
Efficiency is the gospel of a logical mind. The part of Man drawn to nature,
has proven itself, to be far from logical. There again, look at Skinner, his
proposals in the 70's amounted the same kind of state controlled behaviour.
The State as engine for evolutionary change, with market forces determining
direction. Efficiency was the mantra of the early industrial age, its now a part
of us, is it of nature?
>
> > > > Yes I speak almost exclusively of coercive control, a warning with
> > > > an eye for the direction the culture takes us. Yes there are many
> > > > other forms of control, not least self control, but here and now I
> > > > speak only on this worst case.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (gods!?! hahaha. myyy arse)
> > > >
> > > > The reference to Gods, is made for "those who have a deep
> > > > understanding of how such knowledge is applied". Those whose
> > > > application of this understanding, would place them beyond our
> > > > understanding. God : one who is beyond understanding.
> > >
> > > well, then may I suggest some readings so that you may better
> > > understand, and thus become a "god"? Though, I warn you,
> > > with advanced understanding, one realises just how tiny one's
> > > god-like kingdom actually is. lol, the only way a person could
> > > fear the 1984 scenario, is if such a person did not have such
> > > an understanding of how such knowledge is applied. This
> > > sooo reminds me of the past when religious people feared all
> > > sorts of things scientific that went beyond their experience (if
> > > you're religious, then I do not mean to offend you, as religious
> > > people then have clear differences from religious people today).
> > >
> > >
> > > > > you and the rest mentioned focus much too much on the
> > > > > dark-side young sky-walkers ;)
> > > >
> > > > ( (in case you hadn't notice this is ob2 you're speaking to ;) )
> > >
> > > ob2kenobi!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't argue for the absence of control, But wonder what
> > > > > > kind of control we are embarked upon, control through
> > > > > > understanding or control through ignorance?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In another time, aspects of the culture were able to warn of
> > > > > > subliminal control, in this time we just accept. The self that
> > > > > > might show concern has been replaced by the self that doesn't
> > > > > > question. And so it goes.
> > > > >
> > > > > hhhm, great point. and why does the self no longer question????
> > > > > come up with that answer, and answer it well, and I'll invite you
> > > > > to a party some years in the future.
> > > >
> > > > Well IM not really a party person, but the short form of this answer
> > > > would say the self that doesn't question, belongs to the group, it
> > > > sees only the moment, not the past, not the future, not cause, nor
> > > > effect, just the moment.
> > > >
> > > > The self that doesn't question is without the example, the mirror of
> > > > ideas. The self that doesn't question is taught to see no value in the
> > > > steps taken between what we know and what we don't. The self that
> > > > doesn't question fears doubt. 'No doubt' It wears the certainty
> > > > presented by [/to] the group.
> > >
> > > so you're saying that the group might teach or condition the individual
> > > to NOT question? (if that's what can be inferred from what you say,
> > > then I completely agree -- and if you don't mind, would like to apply
> > > my relatively deep understanding of how to apply the principles of
> > > human behaviour to stimulate people to question -- I agree that people
> > > do not question nearly enough).
> >
> > I think you'll find there a limit to how much the culture expects, or
> > wants people to question.
>
> Of course! there is opposition abound. Like the saying goes, "the
> only change people like is the kind that jingles in their pockets."
Ha ha! And yet I sense there is much less opposition, which would only
continue as 'the forces that be' coheres from outside, and through the
culture.
> > Look about you, about the only place you'll find open and
> > questioning minds are the sciences and the arts. That's perhaps
> > that's an overstatement, but the level of questioning which takes
> > nothing for granted, might soon find it, wasn't a functionary of
> > society's chosen path.
>
> thats a possibility. but we won't know unless people like you and I
> continue to push for questioning minds. Of course no bureaucracy
> is going to like it -- fuck'm! Hell, even here in america there is no
> such thing as a philosophy course in highschool (g, I wonder why?).
> I find the world reallly exciting, Alan, because there seems to be soo
> much more room for improvement. Imagine how dull it would be if
> there were no challenges, i.e., if the world was a perfect utopia
> without opposition. No, we have something to do here, important
> somethings. So now tell me what you are going to do (or are doing)
> to open the curiousity and questioning of young minds?
Well of late I am a flood of disparate idea, this is a time for understanding,
making sense of change, noting what we lose and why, what we say is
gained and why. Later, who knows? I may write a song, or pen a fable,
something to covey this point of convergence, and what it understands
of the world. Forums like this are interesting, and the hope is that
someone better placed may find a use for these humble insights. ;)
> > See my other post 'Nurturing the Question in the young'
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Nurturing+the+%27Question%27+in+the+young.&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C2507DF.A505BAD%40freeuk.com&r
num=1
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > But then this entire thread, or the thread that was "Culture and
> > > > Psychology", is about the self that does not question.
> > >
> >
>
-- snatching a moment's thought between the now predictable distractions --
Supporting only those ideas which play their part as functionaries, what do
we become?
Chad L
Yes, and uniformity is in and of itself an evil thing that must be avoided
at all costs. It's backward and wrong and takes away our free will. right?
>
> On your class room example, the class room environment might
> differ, but considered as a whole we are informed by the same
> subject matter at largely the same time in our lives. From nursery
> school, to primary school and beyond, Education follows a
> universal model. The other lessons about relating to the group
> also follows along the same predictably managed paths. Which
> means there is, even if we can't see it, a measure of uniformity.
and we must stamp out all uniformity because it is always bad and
uncreative.
> > > > > === Free-Will ===
> > > > >
> > > > > So you have no value for free-will?
> > > >
> > > > none whatsoever
> > >
> > > Or you have an higher expectation for free-will ;)
> >
> > I thought "none whatsoever" would be taken unequivocally.
>
> The point was, that as you say you have no free-will, you must
> have a definition of free-will that exceeds [y]our current state.
I do have a definition of free-will, however it does not "exceed my current
state". In fact, every definition that I've analyzed does not exceed
anyone's current state, rather it tends to trail off into mystical non -
sense (literally). Mysticism is not exceeding any current state, rather it
is an ill-defined emotionally maintained verbal response. Furthermore, just
as it is inconceivable that a thing can be both red and green at the same
time and place, it is also inconceivable that one can both have freedom and
will at the same time and same place. Its not that red-green objects
"exceed my current state", rather its that "red-green objects" is a
nonsensical verbal utterance.
>
> > > > > Maybe free-will is simply the ability to ask, 'how' and 'why'.
> > > > > If Man ever finds a way to remove that, then we would truly
> > > > > be without free-will.
> > > >
> > > > we don't need "free-will" to ask these questions or find their
> > > > answers.
> > >
> > > I would suggest that a question is asked because there is perceived
> > > a need for an answer.
> >
> > most of the time.
>
> > > Not all questions that can be asked, are asked. For example, rather
> > > than ask,' why is this system better than that other', you might just
> > > accept that it is.
> >
> > I think that is question that should be applied to most systems, if not
> > all systems.
>
> True, but that example was fashioned after the way we accept our
> current political systems as the best, its almost beyond question.
> An opinion bordering on the Sacrosanct.
I know. and while I like opinions that are right; I _love_ opinions that are
both right AND sacrosanct. ;D
oh no. I'm saying that labels are often counter-productive. (however, yes
they often serve a good purpose too, don't get me wrong).
Man is falliable, right. But I agree with Daniel Quinn (in "Ishmael") when
he states that man has been lied to when he was told that man is inherently
flawed. We are not inherently flawed. Still, I think that acceptance lays
the ground work for change. Steven Hayes et. al, talks about this with ACT,
acceptance commitment therapy. Though I agree that questions can also lay
the ground work for change.
> > > > that way.
> > >
> > > Would you deny the role nurture plays in determining outcome?
> > > Would you deny the role culture has in our expressions, or what
> > > we deem acceptable? '...Naturally selected biology'??
> >
> > Not at all. In fact, nurture is subsumed under nature. Nurture
> > is also naturally selected over an organisms history and species
> > history.
>
> And what of culture, is that also subsumed under nature?
yes.
If so
> where in nature would you find the peculiar relationship of 'the
> one to many'? I would suggest this relationship is peculiar to
> man, peculiar to the broadcast media.
one to many? still, even if the "one to many" is only in man, there are
characteristics of certain portions of nature that are unique -- that should
not be surprizing.
> > > We are creatures of behaviour being shaped by culture. A
> > > culture that takes us in particular directions.
> >
> > very true.
> >
> > > The attitudes we say, are that of at variant, and determines a
> > > sociopath, will in another age become accepted as the norm,
> > > common place because the same values are shared by all.
> > > This is about what is considered acceptable.
> >
> > do you really think a society of sociopath would survive long?
> > pahleese, if the other societies didn't wipe them out, then they'd
> > simply wipe themselves out. sorry, in general our genes want to
> > survive more than they want to kill.
>
> As you mentioned Nazi Germany. One saw in that period, the
> sociopath in his element. Rewarded as circumstances allows
> his kind to come to the fore. In our time, even crime is shown
> to play its part as functionary, so what of the sociopath? In a
> warped way its could be argued that society even has a functionary
> place for the serial criminal. [At least if one were to judge the
> values promoted by the culture ]. Natural born, indeed.
society does not tolerate the murderer, especially the serial murderer. and
it never will, for to have a society is to have a place that is relatively
free of such behavior.
>
> Take a look at the worst of our history... The values which were
> accepted for generations, the values we now look back on as
> aberrant, or in-human. There really isn't that much to prevent
> us inhabiting the same state. Nothing except our willingness to
> question.
questioning may only lay the groundwork for change. and even if it does,
questions alone cannot maintain change.
> > > I think you confuse what we have in common with nature, with
> > > what we don't have in common. Nature is without an idea of
> > > culture, changing rapidly from one generation to the next. The
> > > habits we see in nature, are hardwired, passed on through DNA.
> > > Man has another level of information, which changes rapidly
> > > and play's its part in affecting behaviour.
> >
> > I somewhat agree with what you are saying, up until the confusion
> > part. I believe that it is not that I am confused on this point, but
> > rather that my education about this exceeds your experience on
> > that point. I don't want to sound snobbish, but as a matter of
> > fact, that is most likely the case.
>
> I am seeking to make a necessary distinction, one which, in a sense
> agrees we are of nature, mortal, living, loving, growing. And yet unique.
> Capable of sharing our experiences, sharing our doubts and certainties,
> living a thousand life times through the eye of a camera, or the pages
> of a book, exceeding the experience of single life. We are perhaps the
> only creature capable of creating selfdoubt, destroying ourselves
> though language, the only creature capable of healing with song, and
> palms and scriptures. Its those extra traits that places us outside
> nature, even as our mortality says, Man and nature are one.
I once viewed humanity as you do -- as most do. But sacrosanct as it may
seem, I can never view it as such again. However, I do admire the poetry in
your words, and appreciate and love many of the things you mention about
humanity.
>
> To just see ourselves as of nature, is to for a moment, blind to
> those transdental traits, and our capacity to elevate ourselves far
> beyond the base instincts of nature. To just talk of nature, is to
> bind ourselves forever to the many other, less sentient forms,
> and be ruled like them, by laws without reason.
we are not so elevated. the one thing I loved about many native american
tribes, is that they seemed to know this. The only difference, Alan, is that
our patterns of behavior and existence are slightly different from the
patterns of those around us; still we are all part of the larger pattern --
and reasoned or reasonless, we do not get to go beyond the laws of that
pattern.
either you work with the pattern or you don't. either way, you are a part
of the pattern. what is efficient to some in the short run (as you have
pointed out) may not be efficient to others, especially when the bigger
picuture is accounted for. of course we have a limited view of the
consequences of our actions, yet we musn't abandond our observations of
consequences or conceived consequences to make our decisions.
I find conversation with you to be very stimulating.
cl
Celestial
<bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I do have a definition of free-will, however it does not "exceed my current
>state".
You have a lot of questions regarding free-will. No questions exceed
our current state. Interesting that we have the questions in the first
place tho'. It might speak to truth and state, in some fashion.
> In fact, every definition that I've analyzed does not exceed
>anyone's current state, rather it tends to trail off into mystical non -
>sense (literally).
Knowledge transference, yeah hard, looks like non-sense. Probably.
>Mysticism is not exceeding any current state, rather it
>is an ill-defined emotionally maintained verbal response.
Wrong. It is seen, witnessed on the other side of the one who has not
had conveyance as an emotional, vague response. Mumbo-jumbo to
another whose expectations are that the other's state should merely be
a reflection of one's own.
Not hardly the same from the inside of that person who cannot convey
or transmit that experience to another. But understand their focus is
not on seeing you as limited for not getting that, but rather on
themselves for not having any ability to convey it. Damnation! That
language itself is primitive!
>Furthermore, just
>as it is inconceivable that a thing can be both red and green at the same
>time and place, it is also inconceivable that one can both have freedom and
>will at the same time and same place.
Explain what you mean in the above?
>Its not that red-green objects
>"exceed my current state", rather its that "red-green objects" is a
>nonsensical verbal utterance.
It might be. Turn to the left and from the upside down a bit, how
much of the utterances of the world make a great deal of sense?
Chad L
"Celestial" <Cele...@google.com> wrote in message
news:efgbbv0b6c0jf7ccq...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 May 2003 02:04:58 -0700, "Chad L"
> <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I do have a definition of free-will, however it does not "exceed my
current
> >state".
>
> You have a lot of questions regarding free-will. No questions exceed
> our current state. Interesting that we have the questions in the first
> place tho'. It might speak to truth and state, in some fashion.
>
>
> > In fact, every definition that I've analyzed does not exceed
> >anyone's current state, rather it tends to trail off into mystical non -
> >sense (literally).
>
> Knowledge transference, yeah hard, looks like non-sense. Probably.
>
> >Mysticism is not exceeding any current state, rather it
> >is an ill-defined emotionally maintained verbal response.
>
> Wrong. It is seen, witnessed on the other side of the one who has not
> had conveyance as an emotional, vague response. Mumbo-jumbo to
> another whose expectations are that the other's state should merely be
> a reflection of one's own.
>
> Not hardly the same from the inside of that person who cannot convey
> or transmit that experience to another. But understand their focus is
> not on seeing you as limited for not getting that, but rather on
> themselves for not having any ability to convey it. Damnation! That
> language itself is primitive!
or perhaps it is that one cannot convey "no thing". just as one cannot pick
up their shadow and sell it to the highest bidder. However, as in the case
of mysticism, if you really tried to sell your shadow, people would probably
try to buy it.
> >Furthermore, just
> >as it is inconceivable that a thing can be both red and green at the same
> >time and place, it is also inconceivable that one can both have freedom
and
> >will at the same time and same place.
>
> Explain what you mean in the above?
when something is willed, it is by implication caused and has effects. when
something is free, it is not influenced or caused or affected by something,
e.g., it is "random". How a thing may be both caused and not caused (free)
at the same time and place escapes my brain. To say "I have free-will" is
like saying "I am red-green" or "the ice is hot" or "my circle has 3 sides".
>
> >Its not that red-green objects
> >"exceed my current state", rather its that "red-green objects" is a
> >nonsensical verbal utterance.
>
> It might be. Turn to the left and from the upside down a bit, how
> much of the utterances of the world make a great deal of sense?
It took me some time to learn that people talk like they swim and jump and
run and screw, etc.. Often there is no greater meaning or depth behind
what they say -- they just do it.
Celestial
<bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> Not hardly the same from the inside of that person who cannot convey
>> or transmit that experience to another. But understand their focus is
>> not on seeing you as limited for not getting that, but rather on
>> themselves for not having any ability to convey it. Damnation! That
>> language itself is primitive!
>
>or perhaps it is that one cannot convey "no thing". just as one cannot pick
>up their shadow and sell it to the highest bidder. However, as in the case
>of mysticism, if you really tried to sell your shadow, people would probably
>try to buy it.
>
Why should mysticism be "sold" to anyone. Isn't it enough for one
person to say, ok I have had this experience? And that the reaction
you might call "selling" is really a response to you trying to sell
the idea that it couldn't happen.
Let's look at your dream where you were the god over menches. you
said it was exhilerating. What if I am more invested in the idea that
such a thing couldn't happen, rather than accepting that it could? I
might try to "sell" you that it couldn't . Rewrite the script of your
experience. Because of my investment I might say, exhilerating is an
inadequate description, you didn;t convey properly how this could be
exhilerating. Or what if I hear a group of you talking excitedly
about the exhilerated feeling you all had about controlling your dream
and I would say back you are making far too much of a simple matter.
I might try to sell you on the idea that your one exhilerating
dreamscape experience was rather something in the more mundane area of
fantasizing----and you were unable to transfer knowledge of how it is
substantially different from one.
You give up in frustration, my investment remains solid. rather than
keep an open mind and investigate the possibility that there must have
been something very different about it to cause a reaction of
exhileration and I should like that experience too, I demote your
experience to what I have encountered so that we can pretend we have
communicated.
Truth is, in the above example, that I have kept a closed mind on the
matter and have reinforced the possibility that I will never
experience it.
Experience itself is difficult to transfer from one person to another
without recreating the experience itself. Best vehicle for conveyance
is a complete story, but it doesn't carry all the emotions and senses
that went into it so the whole experience is compromised. Now how do
you create a retelling of the dreamscape that will transfer that
exhileration to the listener?
See, language is limited ennit?
>> >Furthermore, just
>> >as it is inconceivable that a thing can be both red and green at the same
>> >time and place, it is also inconceivable that one can both have freedom
>and
>> >will at the same time and same place.
>>
>> Explain what you mean in the above?
>
>when something is willed, it is by implication caused and has effects. when
>something is free, it is not influenced or caused or affected by something,
>e.g., it is "random".
Oh, that's what you mean....that randomness would be free. Wow I feel
just the opposite. Like lets say I am asked to choose between red and
green but I'm color blind, so it doesn't really matter.
>How a thing may be both caused and not caused (free)
>at the same time and place escapes my brain.
If there is a law to time and if you can't change the past, for some
reason it seems to follow *for me* that you can't change the future,
but I am stuck like a record skipping on repeat that you have complete
free will in the present moment.
Errrrr I used to do these visualizations and they would be recreated
in experience perfectly, spot on. So I came to learn that my thoughts
are powerful creators and shapers of my reality. Then I discovered
that by trying to bend the Universe to my will I would always get
something I call a monkey's paw effect. If you have ever seen that
movie Bedazzled its like that, he gets his wishes he asks for but
everything has a screwy catch and that is what I found. The picture I
found could not be sustained.
Maybe our thoughts are powerful and are creators and shapers of
physical reality but uh to take us from A---->Z events have to shape
us and our consciousness so that we are in the position to sustain
that picture. I guess it helps if you know why you want what you
want. I used to visualize other people complimenting me on an
achievement some success of some sort. After a few monkey's paw
experiences now I need to know why I want what I want before I direct
effort.
that would be related to that matter of God's will where you asked
some time ago whether it casued apathy---its more like a guidance
system for directing consciousness to a sustainable and evolving
picture.
>To say "I have free-will" is
>like saying "I am red-green" or "the ice is hot" or "my circle has 3 sides".
>
>
>>
>> >Its not that red-green objects
>> >"exceed my current state", rather its that "red-green objects" is a
>> >nonsensical verbal utterance.
>>
>> It might be. Turn to the left and from the upside down a bit, how
>> much of the utterances of the world make a great deal of sense?
>
>It took me some time to learn that people talk like they swim and jump and
>run and screw, etc.. Often there is no greater meaning or depth behind
>what they say -- they just do it.
You study Skinner?
Jay Vogelsong
> When something is willed, it is by implication caused and has effects. when
> something is free, it is not influenced or caused or affected by something,
> e.g., it is "random". How a thing may be both caused and not caused (free)
> at the same time and place escapes my brain. To say "I have free-will" is
> like saying "I am red-green" or "the ice is hot" or "my circle has 3 sides".
What is "caused and has effects" by a willed action is not the will
itself, so there is no necessary contradiction.
To say will is free is not to say it is not constrained to whatever
extent, and it is certainly not to say it is necessarily random, but to
say that some *choice* is involved. Choice may be between as few as two
possibilities and still be choice, i.e. an exercise in "free-will."
You are in a muddle on this issue because of poor reasoning, IMO.
alan jones
Chad L <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b8vlgi$brd$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
I hope you're not being retorical. I see uniformity as dulling our
sensitivity to our existance. Uniformity invites the bold experiments.
The 'glorious self destruction' of War, as one might welcome, any
exercise to allivate the routine. Uniformity destroys perpose and
invites change, regardless of direction.
[On the red and greed object conundrum, wouldn't perception of
that thing have a part to play in what we say we see, two people
with differing perceptions could both say they see an object as red
and green. I digress;-]
Ok here a definition of free-will which hopefully you won't find
too mystical;) First I acknowledge that our free-will isn't infinite,
its is bound to a brain, of finite resource. This definition says, as
our 'Will' can be made less free, it can also be made free(r). This
definition has the multiplicity of experiences as the basis of our
free-will, and as such sees the limiting of our possible experiences,
ideas and interactions, as also limiting any trend towards greater
free-will. Further I would say, our minds create paradigms of our
experiences, re-applying them in ways which goes beyond the
memory they are held as.
"I think 'New thoughts', comes out of the multiplicity of paradigms
we collect. Not just memories, but absorbed and understood examples,
of systems that work." [From the thread 'A human clone is claimed' ]
By accepting Free-will as a myth, do we inadvertently accept stricter
control as justified? In a sense, we say in that loose esoteric way,
there is nothing lost..
> >
> > > > > > Maybe free-will is simply the ability to ask, 'how' and 'why'.
> > > > > > If Man ever finds a way to remove that, then we would truly
> > > > > > be without free-will.
> > > > >
> > > > > we don't need "free-will" to ask these questions or find their
> > > > > answers.
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest that a question is asked because there is perceived
> > > > a need for an answer.
> > >
> > > most of the time.
> >
> > > > Not all questions that can be asked, are asked. For example, rather
> > > > than ask,' why is this system better than that other', you might just
> > > > accept that it is.
> > >
> > > I think that is question that should be applied to most systems, if not
> > > all systems.
> >
> > True, but that example was fashioned after the way we accept our
> > current political systems as the best, they are almost beyond question.
> > An opinion bordering on the Sacrosanct.
>
> I know. and while I like opinions that are right; I _love_ opinions that
> are both right AND sacrosanct. ;D
I wasn't sure if you'd take the bate. I guess I wanted to see how open you
were to ideas, however abstract. Glad to see you're still playing / exploring.
[ I've gots a few thoughts on 'labels and meanings', i hope to share with
the group at a later date. ]
(Speculation, Not having read Quinn ): But maybe Quinn, had in mind
something of our conditioned reflexes, which as much as it allows us
to learn autonomously, also traps us. I would say, that aspect of our-
selves is flawed, in as much as it exploits us, binds us to the behaviour
of others, and ultimately limits our capacity, our will.
> > > > > that way.
> > > >
> > > > Would you deny the role nurture plays in determining outcome?
> > > > Would you deny the role culture has in our expressions, or what
> > > > we deem acceptable? '...Naturally selected biology'??
> > >
> > > Not at all. In fact, nurture is subsumed under nature. Nurture
> > > is also naturally selected over an organisms history and species
> > > history.
> >
> > And what of culture, is that also subsumed under nature?
>
> yes.
>
> > If so where in nature would you find the peculiar relationship of
> > 'the one to many'? I would suggest this relationship is peculiar to
> > man, peculiar to the broadcast media.
>
> one to many? still, even if the "one to many" is only in man, there
> are characteristics of certain portions of nature that are unique --
> that should not be surprizing.
Anything we don't understand will surprise us.;-) If any question
reflects our times, or the modern age, then it has to be this question
of the 'one to many' relationship which the broadcast media
[in]advertantly exploits.
We live with the questions of other ages, the of 'Free-Will' i
suspect, is the enternal question it is, because it confronts us all
in times of WAR. A question of the indiviual will and its struggle
against the group identy forged in times of war.
Each age has us, recognising the value of those 'Enternal' questions
and asking them anew, but what of the new questions? Do we just
transplant them to the old forms? Do we see the questions asked of
our times?
> > > > We are creatures of behaviour being shaped by culture. A
> > > > culture that takes us in particular directions.
> > >
> > > very true.
> > >
> > > > The attitudes we say, are that of at variant, and determines a
> > > > sociopath, will in another age become accepted as the norm,
> > > > common place because the same values are shared by all.
> > > > This is about what is considered acceptable.
> > >
> > > do you really think a society of sociopath would survive long?
> > > pahleese, if the other societies didn't wipe them out, then they'd
> > > simply wipe themselves out. sorry, in general our genes want to
> > > survive more than they want to kill.
> >
> > As you mentioned Nazi Germany. One saw in that period, the
> > sociopath in his element. Rewarded as circumstances allows
> > his kind to come to the fore. In our time, even crime is shown
> > to play its part as functionary, so what of the sociopath? In a
> > warped way its could be argued that society even has a functionary
> > place for the serial criminal. [At least if one were to judge the
> > values promoted by the culture ]. Natural born, indeed.
>
> society does not tolerate the murderer, especially the serial
> murderer. and it never will, for to have a society is to have a
> place that is relatively free of such behavior.
One could look in the abstract, on the soldier as a man trained
for the role of serial murder. One could say the serial murderer
sees himself as a kind of soldier, sensatised to all the ideas and
influences that exist to fashion the soldier, only his terror is
misdirected into society. The point must seem a poor one to
defend, but I'm making a point of the culture and what it promotes.
The common place ideas, we no longer see because it pervades
every aspect of our being. Ideas we can't see because there are
few to point the peculiarity out to us. If Art has any function
it should be this. To see the common place with fresh eyes,
opened minds.
There is a very real connection between culture and psychology.
A time of war, a time of obedience and duty. A time of stress,
maliability and an heightened susceptibility to the underling forms,
we ordinarily can't see. If we say that every aspect of culture exist
to fulfil a function, then one might also look to see these other
values, beyond mere entertainment, as also fulfilling roles.
Continued influences that sometimes belies normal scrutiny.
Its easy to see it all as just entertainment, to see the manifestation
of crime, population etc has having a totally separate cause. The
idea, is to take responsibility for the values promoted under the
guise of entertainment. Look at how the delicate equilibrium of
positive and negative influences might shift to propagate alarming
consequences throughout society. Its not enough to simply talk of
Change or to ignore the layers of cause and effect that surrounds
us.
> >
> > Take a look at the worst of our history... The values which were
> > accepted for generations, the values we now look back on as
> > aberrant, or in-human. There really isn't that much to prevent
> > us inhabiting the same state. Nothing except our willingness
> > to question.
>
> questioning may only lay the groundwork for change. and even if
> it does, questions alone cannot maintain change.
Change for its own sake, has little value except to occupy time.
What of the direction of change? How do we judge if something
is better or worst for us?
> > > > I think you confuse what we have in common with nature, with
> > > > what we don't have in common. Nature is without an idea of
> > > > culture, changing rapidly from one generation to the next. The
> > > > habits we see in nature, are hardwired, passed on through DNA.
> > > > Man has another level of information, which changes rapidly
> > > > and play's its part in affecting behaviour.
> > >
> > > I somewhat agree with what you are saying, up until the confusion
> > > part. I believe that it is not that I am confused on this point, but
> > > rather that my education about this exceeds your experience on
> > > that point. I don't want to sound snobbish, but as a matter of
> > > fact, that is most likely the case.
> >
> > I am seeking to make a necessary distinction, one which, in a sense
> > agrees we are of nature, mortal, living, loving, growing. And yet
> > unique. Capable of sharing our experiences, sharing our doubts and
> > certainties, living a thousand life times through the eye of a camera,
> > or the pages of a book, exceeding the experience of a single life. We
> > are perhaps the only creature capable of creating selfdoubt, destroying
> > ourselves though language, the only creature capable of healing with
> > song, palms and scriptures. Its those extra traits that places us
> > outside nature, even as our mortality says, Man and nature are one.
>
> I once viewed humanity as you do -- as most do. But sacrosanct as it may
> seem, I can never view it as such again. However, I do admire the poetry
> in your words, and appreciate and love many of the things you mention
> about humanity.
Sorry for the lyrical, just creating a space for the thought. I would suggest
that your view is the view shared by the majority, and has its roots in the
culture we are made to share. We are ruled by the Ideas extending out of
what we are allowed to see or hear of the past. These days, Its all too easy
to read the values that the culture forces upon us. The idea of Nature and
our obedience to nature, is *the* dominate idea.
=== Nature or Pattern? ==
> >
> > To just see ourselves as of nature, is to for a moment, [to be] blind
> > to those transdental traits, and our capacity to elevate ourselves far
> > beyond the base instincts of nature. To just talk of nature, is to
> > bind ourselves forever to the many other, less sentient forms,
> > and be ruled like them, by laws without reason.
>
> we are not so elevated. the one thing I loved about many native
> american tribes, is that they seemed to know this. The only
> difference, Alan, is that our patterns of behavior and existence are
> slightly different from the patterns of those around us; still we are
> all part of the larger pattern -- and reasoned or reasonless, we do
> not get to go beyond the laws of that pattern.
The idea of a pattern has with it, the idea of something fixed and /or
as cyclical. It an interesting idea in the abstract, but the reality has
this pattern constructed [and so influenced] by man. We each play our
part in the form the pattern takes, we each play our part in repeating
the pattern, evolving or the other thing according our perception of
that pattern.
And yet we've moved on. Its seems to me we have the capacity to
improve the pattern ,but lack the will. There are so many vested interest,
so many other systems that owe their existence to this pattern, so many
other systems that exist to exploit this pattern, that there is little will
to change, to improve. The pattern is one that predates much our
modern knowledge; birth control, education etc.
Maybe we'll get there, find the new forms to live by, that's assuming
the appeal of memory and our lack of imagination doesn't pull us to
the past. [Gladiators be damed] In the mean time the pattern has us
trapped. Minds, Language, Thought all are made to serve the pattern.
The fact that culture now appeals to a younger and younger consumer
means the imagination we might look for in the young, is curtailed
by the pattern, infiltrates the potential of the young.
> > > hardley the most efficient way to run things. Had the nazi empire
> > > succeeded in its goals of world domination and the eradication of
> > > all those _different_.
> > >
> > > It would have nothing left to do but eat itself alive in an inefficient
> > > system of control based mainly on coercion.
So true, so true...
> > Efficiency is the gospel of a logical mind. The part of Man drawn to
> > nature, has proven itself, to be far from logical. There again, look at
> > Skinner, his proposals in the 70's amounted the same kind of state
> > controlled behaviour. The State as engine for evolutionary change,
> > with market forces determining direction. Efficiency was the mantra
> > of the early industrial age, its now a part of us, is it of nature?
>
> either you work with the pattern or you don't. either way, you are a
> part of the pattern. what is efficient to some in the short run (as you
> have pointed out) may not be efficient to others, especially when the
> bigger picuture is accounted for. Of course we have a limited view
> of the consequences of our actions, yet we musn't abandond our
> observations of consequences or conceived consequences to make
> our decisions.
Take another look at that pattern, try and see it for what it is. My
knowledge is limited, but my understanding has the western version
of this pattern born aeons ago, sometime around the middle ages.
A system that has the variables P, R & W extending out of nature.
Transplanted upon these variables are the Variables E & T which
exploits W, and the variables I & C which prepares us for W.
That was then. In our age, W continues to be justified, because
E &T demands it and C binds us to it. But what of man at the
centre of this equation? We are shaped by C, made to see only
the justifications for the pattern. In the West, the variables I & C,
has the will of Man drawn towards a singularity, drawn towards
a point of light, beyond which nothing lies. All is as it seems.
So much for the pattern.
We now know better, or ought to. We live knowing so much else
of nature, knowing every action has its reaction, its consequence.
We should know by now to fear the forces of greed, to fear our
ultimate folly, destruction of the lungs we live by, but still we
remain focused upon that singular point. Call it A kind of magic,
a play of words and ideas, a dream born of an age of conquest, or
just the inner workings of an engine for perpetual motion. Some
see the game for what it is, smile and continue on. Growing, seeing
history as it is, understanding the ideas of former times as they were
meant. Most will only ever see the game.
In the mean time, our minds are made to converge, even without us
acknowledging it, upon that constant. [This is important to the idea
of will and imagination.] The Will that might be expansive, is bound.
'New ideas' are fashioned to appease our fears, our concerns. By
'working with the pattern' these new ideas are shaped to take their
place amidst the rest of C existing prominently on favour. And so it
goes on, Boxes built within the boxes, with the Mind and Thoughts
of man at its centre.
So much of life, resolves itself with an unspoken acknowledgement
that we are short sighted creatures prone to make mistakes. Our
Economics is one of the 'knowing mistake' followed by the cyclical
fixes, Ideologies wait to seaze the opportunity at these pivotal moments
of change, shifting as the equilibrium of culture shifts. Everything
has a reason, even if the core of those reasons is known to just a few.
[ he says, looking at the trend towards growing violence and wondering
at the absolutes of control, that wait to be called upon as a fix. The
Equilibrium starts with an old fashion idea call love.]
> > Well of late I am a flood of disparate ideas, this is a time for
> > understanding, making sense of change, noting what we lose and
> > why, what we say is gained and why. Later, who knows? I may write
> > a song, or pen a fable, something to covey this point of convergence,
> > and what it understands of the world. Forums like this are interesting,
> > and the hope is that someone better placed may find a use for these
> > humble insights. ;)
>
> I find conversation with you to be very stimulating.
>
> cl
Stimulation is as much as anyone can ask or expect of another.. Thank you.