Zen Thought For the Day

[EnderAndrew]

One could argue that individuals choose to submit to authority in some societal/government contract.

 

As an individual I accept that it is not in my best interest to have to take care of myself completely alone. I rely upon society. I rely upon industrial roles that allow me to exist primarily as a consumer. In return, I must agree to a social contract in which I must abide (mostly) by American laws and try to contribute as a productive citizen, even if it means only so much as allows me to afford broadband cable (free porn).

 

Isn't that what culture is all about?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

At first glance that seems more like the inner workings of civilization... Then again culture can be different things though they all seem to gravitate around human activity of sorts, including (but not limited to) civilization and its aspects.

[EnderAndrew]

I happen to believe that culture is the offspring of boredom. When our other basic needs are met, we then strive for entertainment, be it Hulk Hogan or Hemingway.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Interesting viewpoint. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter, good sir!

[EnderAndrew]

I actually used to write a daily email/newsletter called Blind Scribblings and Incoherent Grunts.

 

Each day I had a humorous prose/rant, a pun, a word of the day, a quote of the day, and then I started rotating in weekly features as well.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

By reading that you "used to", I assume you no longer do it? If so, that's a shame.

 

In all honesty and somewhat off point, I'm surprsed at the number of people I find to be intelligent and with sharp wit in here but that don't communicate (at least not enough in my opinion). If I had a tenth of your, metadigital's, alanschu's, or gromnir's intelligence I'd have already setup a global network of sites pertaining to dozens of subjects, instead of sticking with my campy attempts at poetry and short fiction :/

[Archmonarch]

The Monkeysphere (which I have blatantly stolen from one of Meta's earlier posts) seems to apply to this discussion.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

o_O;

[EnderAndrew]

By reading that you "used to", I assume you no longer do it? If so, that's a shame.

 

In all honesty and somewhat off point, I'm surprsed at the number of people I find to be intelligent and with sharp wit in here but that don't communicate (at least not enough in my opinion). If I had a tenth of your, metadigital's, alanschu's, or gromnir's intelligence I'd have already setup a global network of sites pertaining to dozens of subjects, instead of sticking with my campy attempts at poetry and short fiction :/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I had an exgirlfriend who routinely ripped my writing for about 18 months, so I stopped writing. Then I discovered she was insanely jealous and I just never really got back on the horse.

 

Drop me an email and I'll send you one of my last writing projects that I considered pretty damned funny. I got 2/3 of the way through a slacker comedy movie script that I really loved. It was pretty damned funny, and I have the ending in mind, but I'm just not really happy with the ending. That, and well it is a movie I could never market so I don't bother. I've also written a bunch of short scripts, a couple of which we've filmed.

[Cantousent]

I happen to believe that culture is the offspring of boredom.  When our other basic needs are met, we then strive for entertainment, be it Hulk Hogan or Hemingway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...But the self-contained man will need no outside source of entertainment. He will be aware of himself, as meta said, and therefore will need no outside validation. He will work his land, sleep with his wife, rear his children, and, if he interacts with society, it will only be to use it for his own ends. There really aren't a lot of self-contained men. The ancients looked upon the idea itself with scorn.

 

Men hunger for community, even outside other concerns. ...Or put it this way, if man requires community to help him remain entertained, why? Why can't he find entertainment all by his own, lonely self? The answer is simple, man is inherently community oriented.

 

Aristotle says that man is by his nature an animal of the city. Folks have, understandably, chosen to understand that quote to mean that man is a "political" animal. It means more than that. It means that man is, by his very nature, an animal of society, in more ways than one.

 

So, men place themselves in communities for the purposes of safety and security, so much is true. Men also place themselves in communities to advance their own power or to protect what power they already possess, as much and as little as that may be. Men seek entertainment in a form provided by other men. Of course, men also seek entertainment both internally (daydreaming, auto-eroticism, etc.) and in the natural world (swimming, travelling, etc.). So, entertainment does not come exclusively from the community. You did not claim as much and I only state the obvious lest it be hidden in plain sight.

 

Now, to come back to the idea of society for the purposes of entertainment, it is clear that men can be entertained passively by other men. Nevertheless, that still doesn't account for things like this message board. It sure as hell doesn't account for the fact that you "used to" write a newsletter.* It doesn't explain why folks who never intend to publish write stories or compose music. Sure, both meta and Player have great points regarding innate human needs regarding reward and validation, but why do we have these needs in the first place? The interaction is the point, not the reward. The interaction is the reward. Someone used the term "belong" earlier. It's a great term, because, regardless of all other considerations, man must belong. He doesn't find security and therefore look for entertainment and, upon finding entertainment, look to find acceptance. Man seeks interaction by which he finds all three. Even as he looks for security, he's looking for entertainment and acceptance because, for man, all of these things stem from human interaction.

 

*I'd be interested to see your newsletter also, by the way. I agree with Mr. Playah, you're an interesting fellow.

[EnderAndrew]

I don't believe we have society for the purpose of entertainment. We have society to fix other basic needs. By living in close proximity of a city (or within a city) I have public utilities, shopping facilities, trash services, public schools, not to mention more social interaction.

 

I believe culture is a result of society taking care of basic needs.

 

The self-contained man would go nuts 9 times out of 10. Sure, one might write Walden, and have the book go on to fame well beyond its merit. But most can't stand sensory deprivation. We need new input. Looking at the same surroundings and doing the same things will lead most humans to delusional states as our body tries to cope with our lack of new information.

 

The same can happen with a lack of social interaction. Thusly, for most us, the self-contained man complex doesn't work.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I am smitten.

[EnderAndrew]

Next we can go on to societal fate vs free agency. It's one of my favorite debates.

[Cantousent]

I don't believe we have society for the purpose of entertainment.  We have society to fix other basic needs.  By living in close proximity of a city (or within a city) I have public utilities, shopping facilities, trash services, public schools, not to mention more social interaction.

 

I believe culture is a result of society taking care of basic needs.

 

The self-contained man would go nuts 9 times out of 10.  Sure, one might write Walden, and have the book go on to fame well beyond its merit.  But most can't stand sensory deprivation.  We need new input.  Looking at the same surroundings and doing the same things will lead most humans to delusional states as our body tries to cope with our lack of new information.

 

The same can happen with a lack of social interaction.  Thusly, for most us, the self-contained man complex doesn't work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Otherwise branch davidian would be the norm. That was a society of sorts.

[EnderAndrew]

I liked his approach though. Claiming to be the next incarnation of God was a good pick-up line.

 

Man couldn't relate to God, and Jesus was the mediator, but he was perfect. Man still has trouble relating, so this time God appeared in the flesh, but in an imperfect form capable and willing to sin. Hence, David Koresh.

 

Join my cult, and let me sleep with you, your sister and your daughter. You can't really say no, as I'm God.

 

Either that or pass the red Kool-Aid.

[Cantousent]

He was a man desperately in need of both Zen and thought.

[EnderAndrew]

New topic.

 

Do we really have control over our decisions in a day-to-day basis?

 

Some psychologists suggest we have genetic memory and instincts that largely guide us.

 

Some psychologists suggest that our enviornment dictates our behavior, and I'm not just talking obvious peer pressure either.

 

Some theologians then throw into the mix that the man upstairs has a master plan already for you.

 

Given the numerous forces of fate at play, how can we feel comfortable in the notion we have control over our actions?

[Darth Launch]

Ahh... the good old 'Nature vs. Nuture' debate... so many wasted seminar hours...

 

*sigh*

[WITHTEETH]

Ahh... the good old 'Nature vs. Nuture' debate... so many wasted seminar hours...

 

*sigh*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't beleive its nature VS nurture but the combination of them working together that influences our thoughts and decisions.

[metadigital]

Hmm, you sound like an individual that is constrained by the limits imposed in a society. That still doesn't preclude individualism, however. The probablility is that an individual will act in accordance with their own interests in the society, but that is still no guarantee: people still go "postal", once some internal reference threhold is triggered.

But isn't individualism the opposition to all forms of control, of authority, over the individual?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't think so, that's just being obstreperous for the sake of it. I.e., it is quite possible, surely, for a bunch of individuals to agree on a (presumably mutually beneficial) scenario, otherwise you aren't talking about individualism, you're talking about chaotic anarchism.

My frame of mind is that my interests in society more often than not are different than my interests as an individual, if not somewhat opposed. I can't personally tell where I begin and society ends on several aspects. I find my interests are predominantly monopolized by a sense of obligation towards concepts such as family, or law; respect of structures which I find inherently flawed or self-serving as opposed to contributing to individuals or communities. Though as you say this doesn't preclude individualism; anyone in theory can live by an independent principle, and avoid society's interference with his belief, but what is the limit? It seems true, absolute individualism will always be very hard to attain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, but are you consciously making a choice?

 

What you seem to be doing is disenfranchising yourself, unnecessarily; it is quite okay to do something that is not beneficial in the short term (or even penalises one) for a long-term benefit. That's what intelligence is for, deciding what is better in the long term, even it it appears to be counter-intuitive at first sight.

 

Otherwise, without intelligence, long-term advantage would need to be hardwired and may not adapt to new circumstances.

 

Again, you seem to be arguing a sort of anarchism, not individualism. I am very happy with my individualism, I consciously choose every action I take (whether it is to pay for a train ticket instead of stealing a ride, or helping someone in the street). It is a self-esteem perpective: I may be choosing between two bad options, but I am choosing. Even if given an extorionate choice, I can still choose the "wrong" option, should I so wish to exercise my individuality.

Laws also provide a structure for positive growth. The greenhouse allows more plants to grown unmolested by pests and weather than without.

In theory mankind can also build societies which will always support and promote people's growth in a positive way, and this would ultimately be something like an utopia. But isn't this a double edged sword? Determining what is best for someone or something may not be necessarily the best. A society could allow humans to grow unmolested by radical environment, viruses, the chaos that would likely come from lack of structured, ruling hierarchy, etc.; and mankind could grow prosper and safe, but this would cost placing control in others' hands rather than our own.

 

Note that I'm not arguing that absolute individualism is better than the positive aspects a given society can bring.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, this is a Hobbesian observation of the "jungle out there", or indeed the conclusion to Eric Blair's 1984.

[metadigital]

...

Sure, both meta and Player have great points regarding innate human needs regarding reward and validation, but why do we have these needs in the first place?  The interaction is the point, not the reward.  The interaction is the reward.  Someone used the term "belong" earlier.  It's a great term, because, regardless of all other considerations, man must belong.  He doesn't find security and therefore look for entertainment and, upon finding entertainment, look to find acceptance.  Man seeks interaction by which he finds all three.  Even as he looks for security, he's looking for entertainment and acceptance because, for man, all of these things stem from human interaction.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's all just a Darwinian hangover of the pre-homo sapiens sapiens survival instinct.

 

Seriously, though, you ask why basic interaction is fundamental to our humanness (and possibly even more fundamental than that: perhaps it is hardwired into every organism, from the cyanobacteria to the hive). Perhaps it is an unwritten assumption that the many can do better than the few. Who knows, maybe the sociopaths have got it right

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I don't beleive its nature VS nurture but the combination of them working together that influences our thoughts and decisions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Siding too heavily with the nature side seriously challenges our concept of free will.

[metadigital]

New topic.

 

Do we really have control over our decisions in a day-to-day basis?

 

Some psychologists suggest we have genetic memory and instincts that largely guide us.

 

Some psychologists suggest that our enviornment dictates our behavior, and I'm not just talking obvious peer pressure either.

 

Some theologians then throw into the mix that the man upstairs has a master plan already for you.

 

Given the numerous forces of fate at play, how can we feel comfortable in the notion we have control over our actions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personally, I am more comfortable with the notion of perfect free will. Viz., every action can be taken by every actor (on the great stage of life, boom! boom!), and to encompass this, there is an infinite multiverse, where each and every choice made is manifest.

[Darth Launch]

Ahh... the good old 'Nature vs. Nuture' debate... so many wasted seminar hours...

 

*sigh*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't beleive its nature VS nurture but the combination of them working together that influences our thoughts and decisions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, I wasn't stating that as my opinion and very few in psychological circles think so extremely either. Like you, I believe that there is an interaction between the two factors, despite there being almost overwhelming evidence to support the nativist position. This of course, questions such important issues as how the justice system works and whether we can be made accountable for our actions if we are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way.

 

From the evidence I've seen (specifically concerning social psychology) the environment serves as a trigger for certain inherited, yet dormant genetic traits.

 

I would go into detail, but my lecture notes seem to have taken a walk somewhere and my memory doesnt serve me

 

DL

[metadigital]

Oh, I wasn't stating that as my opinion and very few in psychological circles think so extremely either. Like you, I believe that there is an interaction between the two factors, despite there being almost overwhelming evidence to support the nativist position.  This of course, questions such important issues as how the justice system works and whether we can be made accountable for our actions if we are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way.

 

From the evidence I've seen (specifically concerning social psychology) the environment serves as a trigger for certain inherited, yet dormant genetic traits.

I would go into detail, but my lecture notes seem to have taken a walk somewhere and my memory doesnt serve me 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ooo!

 

1. Overwelming evidence? I always thought it was accepted wisdom that there is a) no way to untangle the two correlatorily and causally, and b) enough evidence to suggest the reasonable conclusion that both play a significant part. (Just curious, I wouldn't want to mess up your, obviously efficient, filing system ... )

 

2. This sounds fascinating ... what dormant genetic traits are were talking about ...