[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[John Carl]

>
> [Krimel]
> From the point of view of a bee every human "seems" to act like every other
> human. The ability to discriminate differences and distinctions of meaning
> among humans or bee depends on point of view.
>
>

John:

Now now, you're being silly, for sure.  I know people who scream and run for
the bug spray, and I know people who walk freely through the bees without
fear.  Surely bees can discriminate based upon the chemicals in the air, if
not the vibes, man.

So there is a range of behavior expected from mammals, that insects don't
employ or exhibit.

At to your last, everything depends on a point of view?  Well, it's a sorta
truism, and we don't wanna go there now so ... sure.  whatever.


> [John]
> As to your first one, I've had a strongly held disagreement about that
> assertion from day one.  I think it's an unexamined assumption, carried
> over
> from our culture, without any real facts or evidence to back up the claim.
>
> I'm talking about your statement that the reactions of humans are
> hardwired.
>  It's hardwired to pick up and gun and shoot your wife for cheating on you?
>  How does the complex decision process to buy, load, aim and shoot, come
> encoded in dna?  Huh?
>
> [Krimel]
> No but when you are afraid, for example, you will experience elevated heart
> rate, increased rate of breathing, reduction in immune response and a host
> of other automatic, hardwired processes.



John:

Ok I know what you mean by hardwired processes.  But may I point out that
those are caused by either a perception, or a conception.  Let's just take
fear, for it's the most direct and immediate.  My point about these being
the product of conception, is that I can sit in a movie theater, with no
biological inputs at all, just a sensory world of artificial sight and
sound, and be transported to exactly the same biological reactions of fear -
terror even, lust and sadness.  This is not a biologicaly caused event.
It's just a biological reaction to a socially caused event.  The driving
force of all emotions is social.  Ontologically so!  For Self is a social
construct, and without sense of self or caring for self, no emotion is
possible.


Krim:


> When a baby sees an adult face it
> is hardwired to respond with smiles and coos.



John:

Krimel, you're a lousy scientist and a poor observer.  A baby always smiles
and coos in cultures that smile and coo when they  pick up babies.   But,
Indian babies are not so demonstrative.  These are socially-learned
expressions.

Admittedly, there is a biological range of allowable expression, that
creates the playing field at which our features play.  But where we twitch
and grin and smile and cry, is as much "individuality" as anything I can
think of.  If it was all so hard-wired, then it'd all be identical.

And it sure ain't.

Unless you been watching too much tv again, instead of real people.  Go back
to the poopy diapers Krimel!  Find yourself!

Krimel:

Essentially the autonomic
> nervous system is geared to either speed you up or slow you down. These
> prepare you to act and interact with your environment.
>
> Shooting you wife for cheating would be a particular interaction between
> your hardwired biology and the experiences of your past interacting with
> the
> presence of the cheating bitch in front of you at the moment.
>
>
John:

Well, I know you're comfortable formulating it all mechanically like that
Krimel.  Helps you "one up" yerself on your emotions, and that's a handy
thing at times.  I won't argue with you about it.

Mebbe you should see a therapist, tho.


> [John]
> You could say that the reaction of anger, the emotion itself is hardwired,
> but I'd point out that only the expression of the emotion is biological.
>  The source, the creation of all emotion, is rooted in caring for a
> socially
> defined self.  If we turned off all caring about self in a person, they'd
> become automatons without affect, without emtional displays.  And the fact
> is, these emotional displays that you claim are hardwired, are extremely
> variable throughout cultures everywhere.  Inuits don't emote like the
> Scotch
> Irish, who are different than Italians and Japanese.
>
> [Krimel]
> Actually Intuits, Scotch Irish, Italians and Japanese all emote in the same
> ways and mostly for the same reasons. Culture may moderate the expression
> of
> emotion but the range of reactions and reasons for them is relatively
> narrow. That range is not something that would appear significant to say, a
> bee.
>
>
John:  You don't think bug spray is significant to a bee, then you don't
know bees any better than you do babies.

I disagree with your assertion that our range of play is narrow.  Sorry, but
that sounds like somebody getting his cultural inputs from a cultural
translator of dubious worth.  Ask Andre.  He sounds like somebody who's
actually had to deal with a real culture shift, if he agrees with you that
the expression and "feeling" of emotions is all that narrow in range.

Usually people who actually have to live in a very foreign one, suffer a
period of deep depression, signifying deep ego loss.  It's really tough to
be the odd person out, where every other member of the society gets it, and
you don't.  Because you didn't learn them from the womb, and they're not
hardwired, ya know.





> [John]
> It just SEEMS hardwired in a way, to the individuals confronting a
> differing
> culture.  In that moment, it seems like the other person is reacting or
> emoting "unnaturally".
>
> [Krimel]
> Watch "Lie to Me" or look up Paul Ekman. You don't even have to buy a TV to
> watch "Lie to Me" you can stream it directly from Fox.com.
>
>
John:

Sigh.  There's that cultural translator of dubious worth, popping up its
ugly head again. The tyranny of "the program"

(but it's a really great program i like it a lot it mesmerizes me with its
insights and knowledge...oooooo)

Sorry Krimel.  You know I got an attitude.  Don't tell me what to watch.
Tell me what YOU think.

Or don't.  That's ok too.



[John]
> Running from a bear is a social interaction.  This is true because very,
> very rarely do bears chase humans because they are hungry.  Bears chase
> humans because they are mad, defensive or defending territory.
>
> [Krimel]
> Whatever running from a bear is, it is not social. Try William James
> article
> on "What is an Emotion." It is a very strange counterintuitive account but
> has had considerable staying power in the study of emotions.
>
>

John:

Ok, now that recommendation is one I'll buy.  Sounds interesting and if it
doesn't wholly convince me, perhaps it will help me convince you.  I'd like
to read more from James - Royce's life-long bestest pal and buddy and
sparring partner.  According to what I've read, in comparison to Royce,
James is a delight to read.

John:


> Of course, this gets back to the heart of the big issue.  Moronists don't
> believe in choice, right?
>
> [Krimel]
> I remain agnostic on the idea of free will. I think free won't is a better
> way of looking at it but I think it is uncertainty that adds Quality.
>
>

John:

Well, agnostic is better than utterly ridiculous, I guess. So progress IS
being made.





> > [Krimel]
> > Social behavior and collective action is a biological strategy. It arises
> > from and serves biological success.
>
> [John]
> I completely refute your anthropomorphic use of "biological strategy".
>  Strategy, if anything is only intellectual.  And even simple matters such
> as "cause and effect" are nothing except intellectual constructs.  Coupling
> any intellectuality with biological puts us right back where you don't
> wanna
> go.  I mean, calling it "intellectual design" wouldn't make you happy
> either, right?
>
> [Krimel]
> I think you mean you reject rather than refute what I said. Reject means
> you
> just don't happen to accept it. Refute would mean you had a reason for
> rejecting it.
>
>
John:

The refutation arises from the rejection, I thought it would be understood
as implied, and I'm lazy and skipped describign that step, which is bad
form, so sorry.

Saying something is an intellectual construct or concept does not refute it.
> Anything we say is expressed in the form of concepts. What we argue about
> is
> whether one concept or set of concepts is "better" than another.
>
> Intelligent design is just a set of really bad concepts.
>
>
John:

Hey Krimel, don't go all pedantic on me, just to avoid the point.  Would you
please clarify for us "biological strategy" and what it looks like in the
real world?



> [John]
> I've said before, I'm not a fan of the bottom-up hierarchical model, so oft
> employed as "moqese".
>
> The upper levels are much more creative of lower-level patterning, than
> lower-level patterning spontaneously combusts into an upper.  Life takes
> inorganic matter, and rearranges it mechanically and chemically.  Societies
> form to protect and breed and bring more biological beings into the herd,
> to
> train them, socialize them, and be successful at hunting prey, driving away
> competitors and passing on a legacy.  Intellectual patterns take the reins
> of society, and steer in different directions through the means of
> academia,
> art and culture.  Everywhere, the creation on the lower level comes as the
> result of some cause or action on an higher.
>
> [Krimel]
> It think you really don't get this either.



John:

Of course I get it.  I just reject it.  Refute my rejection, if you can.

Krimel:


> Think of theory formation for
> example.



John:

Ok.


Krimel:


> We build theories from the bottom-up through individual observation
> and manipulation of specific instance of events and processes.


John:

No we don't.  We get a big picture in our mind that we desire, and we put
the pieces together to sculpt what we want.  When it matches our desire, we
have peace of mind and we stop adding pieces.

You're the kinda guy who thinks it's art to spew paint out of a cannon,
ain't you Krimel.  You probably got that from some lsd trip hangin out with
them  hippies.

I mean, you must have a problem with Phaedrus's first insight, if you
believe theories are built from the ground up.  That's what science says,
but experience proves otherwise and young Bob said the emperor isn't wearing
those clothes - by asking where do hypothesis come from, before you dreamed
of naked girls leading soft fuzzy puppies.

Krimel:


> That is what
> the inductive method is for.



John:

Theory come from hypothesis + experiment + peer review,

Krimel:


> But we use these individual observations to
> construct a general theory which serves as a conceptual framework for
> understanding (reducing uncertainty) about other similar sets of
> circumstance. That is, theory allows us to generalize broadly from a small
> set of observations. Theories are generated from the bottom-up but applied
> from the top down.
>
>

John:

Wrong.  You flunk the MoQ test, Krimel.  You don't even have kindergarten
knowledge yet.  I guess we'll have to wait for the tv show before you'll
understand the most basic aspects.




> [John]
> Philosophy has to be free of dogma, its the most important difference,
> whereas religion is nothing without it.  Religion really is social, and
> philosophy really is intellectual and individual.  Its the goal of
> religion,
> to bind-together.   Ellul says re-ligere means just that, but he's french,
> what does he know.  It sure means it in practice.   They both have their
> roles.
>
> [Krimel]
> Religion is not a whit less intellectual than philosophy both are
> conceptual
> frameworks, concepts, theories for dealing with the world around us.
>
>

John:  Well that happens to be one of my pet beliefs also.  There could be
an argument for Religion being primarily social today, because of the way
our modern society has bifurcated.  But in ancient Egypt?  Greece?  Rome?
Religion is the intellect's SQ solution for any society.  Religion is the
mythos and intellect is a species of mythos, not the other way around.




> [John]
> Religion keeps us all on the same page.  We're giving out signals to one
> another, that make it safe to co-exist with such dangerous animals in close
> proximity.  Religion assuages this fear, this need.
>
> [Krimel]
> This applies to any particular set of intellectual patterns held by any
> particular community.
>
>
John:

Yeah, but Religion has the kind of teeth that keeps the generations
contemplating death, in line and righteous.  Religion = intellectual
patterns with teeth.  Hmm.  Not bad.  Might keep that one.



> [John]
> And if you throw out religion, what are you gonna replace it with, hmmm?  I
> mean, humanity has basically gotten to this point, always with religious
> underpinnings.  Throwing it out the window, the way we have, is basically
> jumping off a cliff into the unknown.
>
> [Krimel]
> If you throw out any set of intellectual patterns, you will replace them
> with another set.
>
> [John]
> I don't think you're gonna be such a fan of chaos, Krimel, when it's
> hammering at your door with torches and guns in the form of hungry
> mob/gangs.
>
> [Krimel]
> I think you are deeply confused here. No one finds comfort in a chaotic
> universe grinding inexorably toward the heat death. It is terrifying world
> view. The notion that everything around us is fundamentally unpredictable
> is
> so scary in fact that we appeal to religion and science to save us, if not
> from the condition of uncertainty then at least from the fear of it.
>
>
>
John:

I can sorta see your problem Krim, but I think existentialism really has a
lot to offer here.

Perhaps there's a way of embracing the chaotic, that is not nihilistic, but
dualistic.  The fact is there is chaos.  The fact is there are flowers.
Flowers and puppies and bouncing breasts are so much more in evidence, that
it seems to me to be silly to think about the dark side - to fear chaos and
uncertainty, when THAT is the mysterious and non-existent and un-logical
entity. You might define it, but you'll never, ever experience it.   I've
never encountered chaos once.  I've been bumping into Quality all my life.

Which metaphysics is about reality?

Take care.

John