At first glance, I’d have said the opposite–Love and tyranny can go together, but love and violence can not. But I wasn’t thinking at your level of abstraction, I was down at the more personal level. Love, when it’s love of a god or love of a country can certainly promote violence and has done so for centuries. But I think love and tyranny can also go together- Doesn’t Machiavelli deal with this in The Prince? A while ago, I read of a Roman general who conquered a small portion of the total empire. I can’t remember his name, because he wasn’t that famous. The first thing he did was slaughter all opposition. He then set up a system of Roman law that brought peace and prosperity to his conquered mini-empire that lasted for 300 to 400 yrs
At another place, you say,
I don’t totally disagree with w-m’s words, I simply disagree with his ‘salesman’ because it implies ‘power greed’ and the deliberate use of ontology to achieve that power. If fear is the basic human emotion, then fear of what cannot be explained would exist in protoman without the need for a salesman–the HAWM, then, would be anyone who could give structure to the unexplainable and, thereby, lessen fear by displacing it rather than dispersing it totally. The fear would still be there, it would simply have been given a kind of reality.
The question of whether or not religion maintains that fear is, as you’ve said, a topic for another thread. I agree. I also agree that religion, politics, economics, science all demand a certain amount of subservience to maintain order and to alleviate fear. I think science is trying to methodically alleviate basic fears by demonstrating the ‘building blocks’ of life and the universe. But science, imm, can only demonstrate/define the what and the how. Only philosophy even attempts to try to explain the why.
Let me then replace violence with force exerted to dominate or to impose oneself on another.
I must confess not having read that book.
Total slaughter of a race is a step further than tyranny - the tyrant at least thinks he has use for his subjects, would they only behave exactly as he would like to have it. Tyranny is curbing cultivation, elimination of space for meaning-giving, disabling growth and evolution.
It can only be justified from the perspective of the tyrant.
This Roman general probably imposed Roman politics - which was very violent but not tyrannical. (violence and tyranny challenge each other: when ever a Roman emperor became tyrannical he died a violent death)
At another place, you say,
You posit a basic activity - fear -
that is negative.
We might also refuse to posit any such thing, and look at all things in their context. This leads to notions of positive valuations - ideas “inspiring” to activity.
To value the act, not the object of the act. The notion of objective reality thereby transforms from a ball and chain to an empty canvas.
Well said,
Why then has the application of science also increased fear?
Because what is addressed is fear.
“Fear not but fear itself” is a degenerating commandment. Fear should be ignored. That is courage, the thing that had led up to acts that have subsequently been understood as good and evil, both positive valuations, acknowledgments of existence.
All states of being following from fear at one point or another become self-threatening, require intervention of positive valuations by alternating interpretations of causality, and eventually confrontation with the feared object. Otherwise ones psyche “goes bad”, which is a truly negative valuation - lack, want, disintegration of value, a threat from within - entropy. Positive self-valuation is what counters entropy, what creates “order”, which is to say space, time, understanding, a beings being-to-itself.
The Roman general didn’t slaughter the entire population–just the HAWMs, the former leaders, whom he had good reason to suspect would vehemently oppose any change.
I think it’s been pretty much established that fear is a basic–if not, the basic–emotion. it’s present in even the most primitive animals. But fear isn’t always a negative emotion. There would be very little survival without fear. Fear can also lead to tremendous acts of courage–not because the fear is totally expunged, but because it’s been somehow sublimated, or controlled, or becomes a part of, the more instant act of courage. I’m thinking of soldiers in battle and even standers-by who risk their lives to save (an)others.
You asked:
I think, science, if it has done so, increases fear in many ways. First, it’s taken away the ‘hope’ of religion and has done nothing to replace hope and ritual in man’s life. It’s also, in many, many ways, misunderstood, so it isn’t always trusted and can be exploited. Fear, again?
You talk about fear becoming “self-threatening” or “self” threatening and it can be; but, if a person’s mind is ‘normal,’ over-whelming fear is phobic. The mind that has such phobic fears isn’t functioning within the norms set by society. How can phobic fears, or fear of the ‘unknown’ be objectively confronted?
Ah yes, smart. Better than killing every able man and woman. I heard the english took this strategy to a dramatic level by playing a match of soccer with the HAWM’s severed head.
Who establishes such things these days?
I understand, otherwise they would not survive. That it’s always present doesn’t mean it’s the basic emotion though. It may be dependent on something that’s also always present. I hope I’ve made clear that I think this is the case, and what this primary “sense of being” (roughly, emotion) can be recognized as, in a human.
By this example it is apparent that fear is not primary. In premodern terms, nobility is primary to the act of fighting. Fear is what keeps at least a man from being noble. In modern words the term nobility has been taken in displeasure by the crowd. We have abandoned it to art, which tell us the things that are of course not tue (science proves that life is cold indifferent and that all are equal hence all are mediocre), but that we like better than reality.
In which ways do you find science to have been misunderstood?
it is precisely objectivity that threatens the phobic mind.
Fear of “is”-ness - loss of subjectivity.
disintegration is overwhelming. The object of phobia are the reflections of a no longer self-evident subjectivity. Healing such a perspective is very well possible, but totally impossible to “cure”. Healing pertains to the word “whole” - to make whole a broken subjectivity is possible by the establishment of an ideal. Fobia’s can be overcome by creating a “god”, something to which the fobia is subject in the hierarchy of the mind. Over time, reason can mend the structure of the subject so that its drives again amount to a unified experience, while still subjected to the irrational idea of an Odin, a Zeus or an Allah
I don’t know how, exactly to format this properly–I’ll try, however–First of all you didn’t answer all my questions. Schaem dich!
Many sciences (including pseudo-sciences such as psychology and psychiatry) have worked on identifying basic emotion. It was the discovery of the role of the amygdala within the limbic system of the brain, that neuroscience has been able to pinpoint fear and demonstrate it as ‘basic.’ These postulates are important to all sorts of research–from criminology to the development of AI.
Saying that courage is an outcome of fear doesn’t negate fear as a basic emotion. Anger can also be a secondary emotion to fear and anger is, to me, negative. I was simply saying that fear isn’'t necessarily negative in itself.
What’s the difference between nobility and courage? I have my definitions, but I’d like to know yours–I think they’re very close. There’s the “noblest Roman of them all” and the earner of the Medal of Honor because of his “courage under fire”–which is which?
In which ways do I find science to be misunderstood? Take a look around these threads, for a start! It isn’t so much that science is misunderstood, it that it’s not understood by the general public. Science has delved into what most people without the needed specialized education simply don’t understand. Do you understand quantum physics or relativity?–I don’t!
Because we don’t understand, we’re once again faced with ‘fear of the unknown.’ We may not be able to face what we don’t know, but we should be able to face fear, agreed. The thing about science is we have no choices, no fall-back position. Science leaves us with no “Yes–buts.”
And I think humanity is still emotionally and psychologically primitive enough to need hope and ritual. Science hasn’t provided for that need.
BTW, I think the mesoamerican tribes preceded the celts, but i’m not sure–I’m really lousy with dates. Anyway, I believe they also played ‘soccer’ with the heads of the vanquished. I see it as a show of disdain. Of course, it could also have been for the lulz
I already spoken about my ideas re phychotic fears in other threads. I think of it more as the inability to recognize and sort objectivity from subjectivity–to recognize ‘reality’ from fantasy. But I’'m not a doctor.
–But the above contradicts itself directly. Further the second statement asserts and then implies a whole wealth of knowledge about EVERYONE and then the situation they find themselves in. perception for example.
These types of pitiful kwestchuns are degenerate forms of the so called riddle of the universe; but by this I mean the real and authentic riddle of the universe.
All brat kwestchuns of the “whoy” type known to exasperated mothers the world over, derive from a failure to deal with the riddle proper and in turn emanate from that failure.
The “interrogation” of stars, nature, birds, people and everything else are pathological effects of a failure to resolve the “riddle” in those particular instances where it is in fact unresolved.
But the word riddle is far too small and misleading a word for it.
Your OP does not read as a proposal. It simply states a number of assertions without qualification. Which is fine, but that’s where my question about your knowledge came from.
I also raised the issue of children. I know I came up with meanings as a child and came up with meanings that did not fit my family’s beliefs. I have seen this as an adult with children also. They attribute meaning and speculate metaphysically.
This does not mean they are correct in their speculations on meaning, but the idea that there are these priests who speculated, for selfish reasons, and that others, passive non-speculators who were fooled by these people, does not fit my experience of children, who seem quite capable of speculating on such things on their own. IOW this search for meaning seems to arise naturally, whether it is a necessary or good process, the search for meaning that is, is another issue.
Your response above seems like more assertions. Why do you think speculation into meaning was not in their capacity? I am quite sure they did in fact speculate their way to tools, uses of hides for clothing and all sorts of practical day to day solutions, some of which may not have worked and many that did, cultural artifacts, cultural rules. How else did they invent things, tame animals, come up with new words and problem solve in many of the ways we do? How could they possibly have developed all the medicinal uses of plants that they did?
Also their religions are not mediated in the more absolute way of Catholicism. ‘Normal’ people had encounters with spirits, took vision quests, went into sweat lodges and had what we would call religious experiences. Much of what could get one into trouble with a church or be seen as practicing witchcraft was part and parcel of many hunter gatherere non-shaman members of the group.
You assert that the speculators, the priests must have come up with these ideas to benefit themselves. IOW 1) they were just making stuff up and 2) you know their motive. For example you are saying that they could not have had good motives, thought they were helping but were speculating poorly. I am not sure why you think this either.
This is tricky to answer, but in these discussion Western educated minds tend to come in with a lot of assumptions from science. That minds and sentience are isolated events and vast majority of the universe is dead and certainly not sentient. Therefore our concept of meaning is a pathetic fallacy, a projection on a universe that has no feeling or conscousness. This has become the default position and so any assertion othewise bears the burden of proof. But the axiom these people work with is simply that, an axiom. That consciousness is the product of nervous systems and complexity. I do not think this is the case.
I think the whole damn thing is alive, call that God if you will, and conscious. I think this whole has hopes and preferences and thus our sense of meaing fits with something beyond us. I do not think that we all have the same meaning, except perhaps on some very abstract, general level. But I do think that one can be more or less aligned with the whole.
A person may do something because they fear hell, or because they want to go to heaven, for example.
With regards to the particular part of the brain used, I would suggest that both aspects are controled by that part of the mind. One cannot say definitively that fear is in control…there are many who have conquered most fears and are barelly controled by any if any at all.
Then there is the word itself, in many languages the same word used for fear also means awe. (I think Arabic might be one…at least old arabic…)
And I would think of it like this, one might think fear is important, but what is fear without awe, or without respect?
If one does not respect a thing to be dangerous, they do not fear it…
if something is of a mute nature, wherein no harm comes of not doing it, but good comes of doing it, a person still does that thing because good will come of it… It is not a matter of action as avoidance of pain, or neccessarilly action for the gain of pleasure, it is action for the sake of benefit one way or the other. And of course different people are able to see farther as to what will have a deeper benefit than the more immediate things…
Most woman would find this insulting…But I see the first paragraph happening a good bit…I have a sister…and she did that to me all the time…I tend to avoid woman that use that method now…But with regards to the idea in the end…I find that we have more societal pressure on mens expected behavior then we need in a lot of ways…I agree that we should not have irrational behavior…but not all crying is irrational…or disfunctional…and can even be a means to get intouch with the inner self, that is to say understand lower level concerns regarding a subject…Ultiamtely what I’m saying is often men get locked into this idea of not crying and then when they honestly find themselves in aplace where such would be ok they hold back and bottle up the release that is crying(and of time this lead to complete disregard for subconcious concerns)…I mean think about it crying is not so much irrational in itseslf…it is more commonly a natural realease from excessive astoundment negative or positve…be one suddenly made very happy or very sad…In the end the release thereof is functionaly relieving…and can allow more clear functioning afterwords…(can be said to be preventative of unneeded anger) but of course that doesn’t mean cry all the time…or cry at every little thing…or cry just to get your way…or cry just to recieve the high of relief…
Word. Everything is speculation. We speculate that traditions are good to follow, that what we are taught (like that traditions are good to follow) are good things to listen to, people don’t just know anything, we guess…
I am not sure everything speculation, though I wish more people believed that were the case, since I often see people thinking they being rational when it seems like speculation to me. Still I think there are other things one can do. That said I tend to use the word intuition rather than speculation. Intuition (and speculation) can be a highly skilled activity or it can be the zenith of idiocy or it can be somewhere in between: guessing.
Well I might agree there is a difference between intution and specualtion…in otherwords a person can do a thing by mere reaction…instinct maybe…and thus it had no cognitive functions that reaied on the speculation that it was good or that any of the reasons that one might think it was good were good and so forth…by speculation…But then in so far as relying on one’s gut feeling (if that is what is meant by intuition) I would say that relys on a person speculating that such is a good idea…
My intuition says the following: I have to rely on intuition and to not do so would be dangerous, even lifethreatening.
what other choice do I have in many, many situations?
even in those situations where I have time and perhaps I could make a go at some of these decisions by another method - I simply don’t have the energy or need.
Last, rationality depends on intuition, so I can’t see how one has any choice.
What about the things we get into in our lives that are beyond our basic needs? Sure, one knows what is good for him and what aids him in all situations. if that weren’t the case he’d be an idiot. But at what point is deception happening? If we invest our conscious thinking selves too much with a system of reality that was arrived at arbitrarily, where does that put us? Does it take us away from the mishaps of speculation? Or cast you into a maelstrom of, ‘where the hell did I go?’
