[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[John Carl]

>
> [Krimel]
> And insects have a range of behaviors that mammals don't have. I don't see
> your point here at all.
>
>

John:

The point is the difference in dynamic individual response, between human or
elephant society from  the ants and bees.  Jacob Needleman devotes a whole
chapter on it based upon a conjecture of PD Ouspensky's that the ants and
bees represent a "wrong turn" made by evolution.  And he shows how this
"wrong turn" is an available choice to humans.  That we can become like
these collective hives, if we ignore the lessons of evolution.

I'm not making that point particulary, but assuming the understanding of the
many differences between insect society and higher animal society composed
of individual responses to the collective whole.

  I have a feeling I'm wasting my time, because if you don't get that, it's
seems like your thinking is entirely alien to mine.

It seems to me, you don't understand the difference between insect society
and human society, because you prefer the cold, calculation of insect-mind.
It's your prefered mental state, and there's no arguing preference.



> [John:]
> 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.
>
> [Krimel]
> We are already there. All the time. There is no place else to go.
>
>
John:

Right.  That was my point. That's exactly why I said, "whatever".  Such an
obvious truism needs no iteration.

However, with this idea in mind, that you seek the hive-mind - the congruent
viewpoint, as it were.  Beamed at the workers from your central queen-tv
collective, then I guess it's an important realization for you that some
others see things differently.  For me, ho-hum.  For you, enlightenment.



> 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.
>
> [Krimel]
> No you really don't. We are hardwired to have certain kinds of perception.
> Conception has nothing to do with this. You have sensors dedicated to light
> sound, chemicals, pressure, heat etc. At different set of receptors would
> lead to a different kind of perception and different conceptions if those
> perceptions here sufficiently sophisticated.
>
>

John:

This is just getting more and more pathetic.  If the perception isn't
conceptualized, then there is literally NOTHING against which to emotionally
react.  If you have no concept of danger - you're like the penguins who mill
curiously around the men clonking them on the heads with clubs.  Large fuzzy
input to the eyes, growling sound in the ears?  Mean nothing without some
experience or teaching about bears, or at least, predation and danger.




> [John:]
> 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.
>
> [Krimel]
> One more time. We are equipped to accept input and produce output in
> particular ways. Those ways, a result of our evolutionary heritage, are
> based on the most like kinds of environments we will find ourselves in. But
> out specific outputs are determined by the interaction of our biology with
> the environment. Neither nature nor nurtur determines our output but the
> both influence it.
>
>
John:

The idea I'm trying to express, is the usefulness of analyzing social
patterning (nurture) in a separate context from biological.  The fact that
"we are equipped" is not what drives our actual responses.  It's merely the
creative field upon which our social responses play out.  Assigning cause to
the lower level of biology, to the level of social games, is a mistaken
move, and why I think the MoQ is a better metaphysical system for dealing
with reality than the objective scientific approach, which doesn't see the
QUALITY of difference between ants and humans.


>
> 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.
>
> [Krimel]
> I really don't have anything more to tell you about this. I told you
> already
> were to go look to get a handle on this. But what you are saying here is
> uninformed. I only have so much time available to help you with ignorance
> you are going to have to do some of the work on your own.
>
>
John:

You do like to respond in kind, somewhat predictably, don't you Krimel.  And
any facts which contradict your encapsulated hive-mind world-view, why, they
must be mis-informed.  I must not have gotten the memo from the queen, eh?


> [Krimel]
> What I said is that the expression and interpretation of emotion is
> universal among humans. We can even with presumably a fairly high degree of
> accuracy interpret the emotional states of animals. This is not learned.
> What is learned in and influenced by culture is the proper times and
> circumstances for the display of certain emotions.
>
>
John:

If you'd do some thinking, instead of rote spouting what you've been told,
you'd realize that proper timing and display of emotions is the whole deal.
The biological fact that I've got a mouth that I can grin with, is
irrelevant to the meaning of a grin when I employ it.  I mean, if I just
grin haphazardly all over the place, randomly, then grins don't mean
anything at all.




> See above.
>
>

John:

I'm grinning now, let me tell you.



> > [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.
>
> [Krimel]
> It was a suggestion and included options. If you prefer ignorance feel free
> to ignore them but don't whine about not getting additional suggestions.
>
> See above.
>
>
John:

I never whine about not getting additional suggestions.  You must be
thinking of somebody else.  Have dmb lecture you sometime about the
psychological phenomena known as "projection".  It might be helpful.

And truthfully, what's so mysterious about prefering ignorance?  I thought
you were into Taoism?


>
> 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?
>
> [Krimel]
> Social behavior is a biological strategy that emphasized cooperation among
> con-specifics rather than competition between them.



John:

How is social behavior "biological strategy" is what started us down this
road.  But it doesn't look like we're going to get anywhere, does it.

You've got this mentality that sees everything just happening, by chance,
and then getting reinforced in the real world.  Like a baby just happens to
smile one day, and gets rewarded for it.  But babies don't get rewarded
biologically for smiling, Krimel. They get rewarded biologically by crying.
The get socially rewarded for smiling.  I think the MoQ is powerful in
understanding this difference, but I can't see any way to convince you of
that.



> Another strategy would
> be to produced lots and lots of offspring and ignore them; confident that
> if
> only a few survive that will be plenty. Reptiles and insects do this.
> Another would be to have just a few offspring and to lavish them with love
> and attention, investing lots of energy in the next generation. That's what
> mammals to.
>
> Notice that even within species these strategies are at work. In humans for
> example women have relatively few eggs and their strategies involved
> protecting those eggs and conning males into helping them. Men on the other
> hand produce about 1000 sperm per second and want to spread them around as
> much as possible. Don't ask me how this conflict is supposed to be resolved
> and obviously the range of culturally established patterns for this are
> legion.
>
>
John:

I could say something sarcastic here, about "reproductive strategies", but I
won't.  What's the use?  dmb's right, you have a fiercely reductionistic
mindset and you're very much wedded to it.

I guess it's just hardwired into Krimel.


> 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]
> You seem like a nice guy more concerned with how you write than what you
> say. Marsha surely is a better audience for this than I. This is just
> wasting my time.
>
>
John:

I guess it's just hardwired into me.  Let's do an experiment.  Let's see if
my social expression toward you is really hard-wired or not.  If it is,
I'll be unable to stop.