Better For Who?
My dear Antagaus! You pose a question that by its nature betrays a cynical attitude; which to be honest I don't blame you for. Your attitude is indicative of the adversarial approach mankind has to societal decision making. But to answer your question directly, it is for everyone; without favour to any specific group or party that might otherwise be driven by idiosyncratic self-interest. Without meaning to sound too cryptic or evasive, I would have to confess that what I propose would have its winners and losers, at least at face value, but my reticence at divulging the specifics, is that one must understand the fundamentals of my argument in order to see its merit. To that end, I would like to modify your question to, "what is it, that is better?". Of course the nature of comparison in the question has changed, from the object of the em-betterment, who, to the nature of the em-betterment itself. With that in mind I would like your permission to show you the comparative: from what our nature is now, to how and why it can be changed to something better. Subsequently you will, hopefully, see the irrelevance of your original question.
Antaganus: What??!! Oh, knock yourself out man.
Antaganus: What??!! Oh, knock yourself out man.
The nature of our existence, our perspective on reality, is truly the stuff of philosophy. One might say that such esoteric considerations are so far removed from the practical as to be an intellectual irrelevance for our day to day living - the preserve of academics. But this is not true. What makes us "tick" in the manner we do is the very stuff of our daily living. But do we really see what makes us "tick"?
The fact is, we don't see. We don't look. We don't see beyond the obvious. We accept the the prima facie and don't look to see what lies behind. Just like the "magic image" with it's hidden stereoscopic image of a heart at the centre. Unless we are told we won't look and even being told we cant always see it.
What do we not see? That the nature of our living is played out to a particular set of motivational criteria. From before our birth we were set with an inherited nature (as is all life); a motivational program that dictates the way we live our lives: survive and procreate. It is the very realisation of the survive and procreate motivation that, for most of us, we are blind to; and with it, of course, the subsequent implications. As well as the intellectual realisation of the motivation, there is also circumstantial evidence - the coercion of hunger, thirst, tiredness and pain - that we do not recognise as being the influence of motivational programming. Imbibed so completely in our prima facie perception of reality, we think that we have autonomy and power to run our lives; but we are, in reality, deluded being enslaved to living: surviving at any cost and all by the fear of pain and death.
Antaganus: WHAT! You make mankind sound like a bunch of puppets being coerced and manipulated to do things. I am my own man! I think for myself and I make my own decisions. No one manipulates me to do anything. So where are you going with this line of argument? Even if one goes with mankind being a manipulated puppet, I thought you were going to show me how great your idea was compared to what we have now. Oh and by-the-way I don't see anything, heart or otherwise, in the picture.
Well, without meaning to sound offensive Antaganus, your reaction fits perfectly into my description of people who, even when told, still do not see - just like the heart in the magic eye puzzle. And, yes, I am trying to show a contrast between two methods of motivation.
But first, I will have to try harder at describing what I mean by the current method, as without your understanding of it, I can go no further. Let me first open your mind to a possibility. The Sceptics gave us a specific pearl of philosophical wisdom, that we can have no absolute assurity of any perceived reality as being true: Rene Descarte - Evil Demon; Gilbert Harman - Brain in a Vat/Jar; and Nick Bostrom - computer simulation - are all variants on a similar theme that are exemplified in the film the Matrix. The Matrix, depicted life as an illusion, a highly complex deception where everyone (apart from a few) existed only as incubates, being fed both nutrients and the illusion of life in their minds. And no, Antaganus, I am not suggesting we are in such a state, but like the incubates we can tend to accept the reality we find ourselves in without questioning its nature. All I am asking for is that sceptic questioning of our perception of realty to determine what it is that motivates us.
Antaganus: Well OK, I see what you're saying. We can be analytical about the nature of our existence. Not sure where that's going to get you. It's a big leap from being analytical, to saying we're "slaves to death" (definitely smacks of religiosity), that we're just coerced manipulated puppets. You need show some behavioural evidence that supports this claim. Most people, going round their daily lives don't feel like manipulated slaves.
You are so right Antaganus! Like the heart in my magic eye picture, the evidence is not that obvious. My first, and I feel most compelling argument, is in the fact that we are an animal. It is therefore, not without good reasoning that I should turn to animal behaviour in looking for evidence for my assertion. I fully accept that there will be a gamut of people that for varying reasons find the parallel of animal behaviour with that of human behaviour as being not apposite. Varying, from those that do not see humans as animals to those that feel there is a significant differential to human behaviour as to render any comparison inappropriate. In my opinion we are an animal and would like to think that in dismissing any argument to the contrary I would be part of the significant norm.
I am sure Antaganus, you will have seen the wildlife programs on television, like those made by Sir David Attenburgh, where there is a clear depiction for the struggle for survival. Not just in terms of predation, but with the search for food and the right to mate. There can surely be no contradiction to saying that the nature of animal existence exhibited in these programs, is one of a competitive struggle which leads to "a prescribed" pattern of behaviour; instinctual, survival of the fittest and not one of choice. This is the pattern for all living things; an unemotional/unsentimental set of rules from which an inordinately varied set of living thing can exist in a dynamic balance on our planet; the balance of nature.
Antaganus: Ok look, I get it, we are an animal and yes I guess somewhere in our distant past we were apart of this type of existence, but really, we don't need reminded of a brutal ancestry, it's uncomfortable to think of it and anyways it really is ancient history we're not like that now.
An unwanted reality indeed Antaganus. In viewing these activities, we look on with some degree of separation, as there is, between audience and actors and with in an emphatic human understanding can see these unfolding events with emotions and feelings beyond the reality for the actor's; cruel, unfair, sad, barbaric. We see the nature of things and although most of us understand the mechanism of "survival of the fittest", the stark reality of life and death feeds our empathic feelings, with unwanted realities; that what we are watching is the mechanism that we are still very much apart of.
Antaganus: Oh come on, if I feel like a burger I go to Mcdonald's, I don't go off chasing a cow with round a field with a spear, nor do I like some cartoon neanderthal, dragging my partner by the hair in one hand and clubbing would be suitors off with the other. This just isn't real
But as i said in my opening statement Antaganus you are quite right, the manifestation of the same struggle that we can readily see in wildlife is not the same for humans: we clearly (for most of us) do not need to enter in to aspects of the struggle that wild animals do. We, unlike our wild counterparts, have a very developed intellectual understanding of the laws of nature. We grow crops and keep domesticated animals for our food supply, Our evolution has allowed us to adapted to a method of pairing off for copulation, devoid of conflict. So I would readily agree that for the most part in our daily lives we do not exhibit the competitive struggle. That is not to say that the sophistication that our intellect allows us, has changed the basic motivational force behind the attitudes and subsequent decisions that we make in our daily lives. Take for instance, as I have mentioned earlier, the free market economy model as having a direct parallel with the notion of survival of the fittest.
We have developed systems that take out some of the vagaries to living, that in part allow us to avoid the crisis liveing of wild animals. The most obvious and notable example is that of growing crops; the change from a nomadic hunter gatherer to settled social living: this extraordinary development lead in time to very complex social structures we have to day: We found more and more ingenious ways to "simplify" our lives. By becoming more efficient and effective we developed a surplus of time and product, enabling us to do other and more activities; in effect our ingenuity became so beneficial that it allowed us to go beyond the requirement of our daily living to that of a surplus to our immediate requirements and so was born the concept of wealth. The creation of wealth has given us "civilisation" but like a veneer it is only a covering that hides the underlying basewood of our animals nature; remove that veneer of wealth and we will resort to that instinctual nature. The sophistication of mankind's living has the appearance of being different; the apparent lack of struggle (for some) to survive is just part of the natural dynamic of evolutionary development and not a substantive change to the mechanism itself.
Antaganus: MMMM well, I still feel that your connection of man, the wild animal, is a bit tenuous but I can follow your reasoning that just because we can't see the obvious effects of our animal nature it could still be influencing our thinking at times. But there are some good people in the world doing good things: caring for other people and we have a good notion of justice, so where would that fit into your animal behavior thinking. I don't see much evidence of care and concern in the animal kingdom like that. Man is basically good, other animals are just ..... animals !
"Man is good?" tempting as this provocative statement is Antaganus I'll leave it for another day and say "Yes" yet again you are so right my friend. There is very compelling evidence to forward your assertion of there being "good men/women" and no there is no corresponding evidence from our wild ancestry to indicate its emergence from our past. So it is reasonable if not inevitable to assert that any qualities that go to make up our "good" in mankind must be unique to mankind. Without digressing too much, it is probably valuable to suggest why and where this "good" has come from and consequently, to give a quantification and nature to this notion of good.
A couple of paragraphs ago I made reference to the way we viewed the wildlife programs as being an audience watching the wildlife actors play out their lives. What appears to be the simplest of past time: watching a play or tv drama, is in fact an example of an extraordinary ability mankind has. It emanates from two joint high level intellectual abilities: Abstract thinking and empathy. To take oneself out of oneself and from that abstracted position consider the emotions and feeling of another. What sounds like a simple enough process is I believe unique to man (to the degree which he can do it). It is this ability that give us, the play's attraction: we can have the emotional stimulation of what we see and hear but from the perspective of a separated reality. But this has wider implications if we take it out of the imagery of a play.
Ultimately the ability of a of man to hold a "separated perspective" in the manner I have just described will lead to fundamental tenet of my philosophical thinking; an element of which I will later come to describe as "The duality" where we can either live from our instinctual nature or a principled belief. But for the moment want to explore how the ability of seeing a separated perspective progressed.
Imagination! I am not an anthropologist but I wonder if imagination is not another extraordinary ability unique to man, that in part is the product of the ability of "separated perspective"; conceiving of things beyond the immediacy of what we see before us. Our early history is extensively peppered, in many cultures with what I see as examples of imaginary considerations on the subject of a separated/abstracted perspective; from the myths and fables of the Greco-Roman Gods to the Norse gods and Egyptians and many more. At this moment I am not going into all the motivational reasons why I think man created his alter egos but I can't think of any early cultures that do not employ, sometimes very complex imaginative constructions from the basis of a "separated perspective". Although these examples contain a number of other deeply philosophical imponderables most notably death, they are most certainly considerations on the theme of an abstracted perspective, perhaps most obvious seen in the greek/roman gods.
Antaganus: Just in case you've got yourself lost in the ramble, albeit quite an interesting one, you're supposed to be showing where "the good" in man has come from.....love the romans gods bit, so true; mans alter ego, so true.
Thank you Antaganus, I'm getting there, As you very correctly pointed out there are some very good men and women and whose "goodness" is not a part of our animal nature. I just wanted to show you the bedrock on which "good" and indeed our sense of morality has come from; that without the certain abilities: abstract thinking, imagination and empathy such notions as morality and good would not be possible. Without the abilities of seeing an altered perspective with empathic self awareness we would not be in a position to see a very particular paradoxical dichotomy.
Antaganus: A What?
Well to explain, I would like to tell your another story Antaganus, it's about death that I mentioned a moment ago
and paintings.
Angaganus: Paintings? Go for It
I believe something happened to man a long time ago; an extraordinary awareness that unfolded from the pages of his new found self awareness; when mankind was still in his infancy, truly a moment when a spec of knowledge led to a cascade of thoughts and feelings....
Angaganus: Oh do get on with it.
... the moment when truely Adam eat the apple of knowledge...
Antaganus: REALY ....
I know I am life.... I know I will die
For an ego centric being, driven by a motivation for selfish survival, to become aware that all of it ends in inevitable death, the very thing he is trying to avoid, is a bit of a mind twister: no wonder he made the alter ego of his immortal gods! No other animal has a concept of death in the manner that man does. Although we, to day, too have this awareness we are brought up with this knowledge from our earliest years; it can still be the food for morbid contemplation, the inevitable consequence to life, is death.
Antaganus: Get on with the story !
Ok here it is: imagine yourself as a man living as a hunter gatherer, its early morning, a chilling breeze greets a rising sun. Standing on a promontory overlooking a misted landscape, you clasp your spear tightly. Today you hunt mammoth. In the back of your mind are some very disturbing thoughts that rest uneasily in your mind but you put them aside. Adrenaline rising; your excited at the prospect of the hunt, the promise of food and warmth drives you on. A cry goes up from a fellow hunter. He points and there it is, a mammoth in the distance .... the hunt is on.
The hunt is long and arduous. Your band of hunters eventually catch up with the animal as the sun reaches its zenith. The massive beast turns and stands its ground; flailing it trunk and tusks in defiance it charges and then continues to run again, and again it stops to defy the hunters. But mottled blood patches stain is fur, from the pears that found their mark. Eventually it shows signs of weakening; in desperation it makes its final stand. The outcome is inevitable. It is you on the animal. The right position to place the deadly blow. You stand poised, spear charged for final act.
Time stops for a split moment. Your can feel the heaving body of the beast as it struggles for breath, the pounding of your own heart in your head. You can see the terror in its eyes .... and you remember, in that fleeting moment those resting uneasy feeling come flooding back: I am killing this beast. You plunge the spear head deep into the beast. You watch the flickering embers of life trickle away. Its is dead.....
Antaganus: Oh BOO HOO,, what a load of sentimental cobblers.
....That night you celebrate. The security, the achievement; your family fed, warm, but as the embers of the fire wain, you remember "that" moment and consider the paradoxical dichotomy: my liveing is anothers death.
You know what death is, you've well consider it and with your empathic self awareness you can see that for the mammoth, your living, is (at his expense) a bad thing. However unwillingly it has given its life for you, to live. Maybe it is the turbulent emotions you feel, that tomorrow will see you paint the image of your mammoth, on your cave walls, to he who has given you life, in reverence.
Antaganus: you were suppose to be telling me where good came from, im sorry I just don't see where this sentimental story has got you in that regard? And I definitely don't get what a paradoxical dichotomy is.
Well the paradox is; that "good" (from two different perspectives; (the dichotomy; you and the mammoth)) are different, contradictory, what is good for you is bad for the mammoth and visa versa.
Antaganus: ah OK see that, but how does that show anything about goodness?
well yes thats a bit more convoluted: in part the answer resides in the nature of man as a selfish (no pejorative) animal and in the nature of good as an abstract quality. For an animal good has only one perspective good for me, (an animal unlike man has none of the abilities i've talked about) to consider anything beyond that, but when man steps out of that animal perspective into an abstracted perspective he can sees that "good" no longer just resides with himself but in fact his very existence has a degree of flawed impotence; his dependence on killing, that could see him as being bad in regard towards other living things. such a realization is a bruise to his ego. He can have a concept of being bad. perhaps the motivation to create the gods of his alter ego?
Antaganus: Are you saying that in essence our notion of morality came from our being able to see ourselves as being bad ?.... wow just a tad ironic but I do see where you're coming from. Ok but that kind of plays into my court; man in seeing that he can be bad he can do good so you're kind-of agreeing with me that man is good? moral?
No. Morality is just a word that denotes the notions of good or bad (usually behaviour) it does not quantify what is good or bad nor does it inherently give motivation to be good or bad.
What do we not see? That the nature of our living is played out to a particular set of motivational criteria. From before our birth we were set with an inherited nature (as is all life); a motivational program that dictates the way we live our lives: survive and procreate. It is the very realisation of the survive and procreate motivation that, for most of us, we are blind to; and with it, of course, the subsequent implications. As well as the intellectual realisation of the motivation, there is also circumstantial evidence - the coercion of hunger, thirst, tiredness and pain - that we do not recognise as being the influence of motivational programming. Imbibed so completely in our prima facie perception of reality, we think that we have autonomy and power to run our lives; but we are, in reality, deluded being enslaved to living: surviving at any cost and all by the fear of pain and death.
Antaganus: WHAT! You make mankind sound like a bunch of puppets being coerced and manipulated to do things. I am my own man! I think for myself and I make my own decisions. No one manipulates me to do anything. So where are you going with this line of argument? Even if one goes with mankind being a manipulated puppet, I thought you were going to show me how great your idea was compared to what we have now. Oh and by-the-way I don't see anything, heart or otherwise, in the picture.
Well, without meaning to sound offensive Antaganus, your reaction fits perfectly into my description of people who, even when told, still do not see - just like the heart in the magic eye puzzle. And, yes, I am trying to show a contrast between two methods of motivation.
But first, I will have to try harder at describing what I mean by the current method, as without your understanding of it, I can go no further. Let me first open your mind to a possibility. The Sceptics gave us a specific pearl of philosophical wisdom, that we can have no absolute assurity of any perceived reality as being true: Rene Descarte - Evil Demon; Gilbert Harman - Brain in a Vat/Jar; and Nick Bostrom - computer simulation - are all variants on a similar theme that are exemplified in the film the Matrix. The Matrix, depicted life as an illusion, a highly complex deception where everyone (apart from a few) existed only as incubates, being fed both nutrients and the illusion of life in their minds. And no, Antaganus, I am not suggesting we are in such a state, but like the incubates we can tend to accept the reality we find ourselves in without questioning its nature. All I am asking for is that sceptic questioning of our perception of realty to determine what it is that motivates us.
Antaganus: Well OK, I see what you're saying. We can be analytical about the nature of our existence. Not sure where that's going to get you. It's a big leap from being analytical, to saying we're "slaves to death" (definitely smacks of religiosity), that we're just coerced manipulated puppets. You need show some behavioural evidence that supports this claim. Most people, going round their daily lives don't feel like manipulated slaves.
You are so right Antaganus! Like the heart in my magic eye picture, the evidence is not that obvious. My first, and I feel most compelling argument, is in the fact that we are an animal. It is therefore, not without good reasoning that I should turn to animal behaviour in looking for evidence for my assertion. I fully accept that there will be a gamut of people that for varying reasons find the parallel of animal behaviour with that of human behaviour as being not apposite. Varying, from those that do not see humans as animals to those that feel there is a significant differential to human behaviour as to render any comparison inappropriate. In my opinion we are an animal and would like to think that in dismissing any argument to the contrary I would be part of the significant norm.
I am sure Antaganus, you will have seen the wildlife programs on television, like those made by Sir David Attenburgh, where there is a clear depiction for the struggle for survival. Not just in terms of predation, but with the search for food and the right to mate. There can surely be no contradiction to saying that the nature of animal existence exhibited in these programs, is one of a competitive struggle which leads to "a prescribed" pattern of behaviour; instinctual, survival of the fittest and not one of choice. This is the pattern for all living things; an unemotional/unsentimental set of rules from which an inordinately varied set of living thing can exist in a dynamic balance on our planet; the balance of nature.
Antaganus: Ok look, I get it, we are an animal and yes I guess somewhere in our distant past we were apart of this type of existence, but really, we don't need reminded of a brutal ancestry, it's uncomfortable to think of it and anyways it really is ancient history we're not like that now.
An unwanted reality indeed Antaganus. In viewing these activities, we look on with some degree of separation, as there is, between audience and actors and with in an emphatic human understanding can see these unfolding events with emotions and feelings beyond the reality for the actor's; cruel, unfair, sad, barbaric. We see the nature of things and although most of us understand the mechanism of "survival of the fittest", the stark reality of life and death feeds our empathic feelings, with unwanted realities; that what we are watching is the mechanism that we are still very much apart of.
Antaganus: Oh come on, if I feel like a burger I go to Mcdonald's, I don't go off chasing a cow with round a field with a spear, nor do I like some cartoon neanderthal, dragging my partner by the hair in one hand and clubbing would be suitors off with the other. This just isn't real
But as i said in my opening statement Antaganus you are quite right, the manifestation of the same struggle that we can readily see in wildlife is not the same for humans: we clearly (for most of us) do not need to enter in to aspects of the struggle that wild animals do. We, unlike our wild counterparts, have a very developed intellectual understanding of the laws of nature. We grow crops and keep domesticated animals for our food supply, Our evolution has allowed us to adapted to a method of pairing off for copulation, devoid of conflict. So I would readily agree that for the most part in our daily lives we do not exhibit the competitive struggle. That is not to say that the sophistication that our intellect allows us, has changed the basic motivational force behind the attitudes and subsequent decisions that we make in our daily lives. Take for instance, as I have mentioned earlier, the free market economy model as having a direct parallel with the notion of survival of the fittest.
We have developed systems that take out some of the vagaries to living, that in part allow us to avoid the crisis liveing of wild animals. The most obvious and notable example is that of growing crops; the change from a nomadic hunter gatherer to settled social living: this extraordinary development lead in time to very complex social structures we have to day: We found more and more ingenious ways to "simplify" our lives. By becoming more efficient and effective we developed a surplus of time and product, enabling us to do other and more activities; in effect our ingenuity became so beneficial that it allowed us to go beyond the requirement of our daily living to that of a surplus to our immediate requirements and so was born the concept of wealth. The creation of wealth has given us "civilisation" but like a veneer it is only a covering that hides the underlying basewood of our animals nature; remove that veneer of wealth and we will resort to that instinctual nature. The sophistication of mankind's living has the appearance of being different; the apparent lack of struggle (for some) to survive is just part of the natural dynamic of evolutionary development and not a substantive change to the mechanism itself.
Antaganus: MMMM well, I still feel that your connection of man, the wild animal, is a bit tenuous but I can follow your reasoning that just because we can't see the obvious effects of our animal nature it could still be influencing our thinking at times. But there are some good people in the world doing good things: caring for other people and we have a good notion of justice, so where would that fit into your animal behavior thinking. I don't see much evidence of care and concern in the animal kingdom like that. Man is basically good, other animals are just ..... animals !
"Man is good?" tempting as this provocative statement is Antaganus I'll leave it for another day and say "Yes" yet again you are so right my friend. There is very compelling evidence to forward your assertion of there being "good men/women" and no there is no corresponding evidence from our wild ancestry to indicate its emergence from our past. So it is reasonable if not inevitable to assert that any qualities that go to make up our "good" in mankind must be unique to mankind. Without digressing too much, it is probably valuable to suggest why and where this "good" has come from and consequently, to give a quantification and nature to this notion of good.
A couple of paragraphs ago I made reference to the way we viewed the wildlife programs as being an audience watching the wildlife actors play out their lives. What appears to be the simplest of past time: watching a play or tv drama, is in fact an example of an extraordinary ability mankind has. It emanates from two joint high level intellectual abilities: Abstract thinking and empathy. To take oneself out of oneself and from that abstracted position consider the emotions and feeling of another. What sounds like a simple enough process is I believe unique to man (to the degree which he can do it). It is this ability that give us, the play's attraction: we can have the emotional stimulation of what we see and hear but from the perspective of a separated reality. But this has wider implications if we take it out of the imagery of a play.
Ultimately the ability of a of man to hold a "separated perspective" in the manner I have just described will lead to fundamental tenet of my philosophical thinking; an element of which I will later come to describe as "The duality" where we can either live from our instinctual nature or a principled belief. But for the moment want to explore how the ability of seeing a separated perspective progressed.
Imagination! I am not an anthropologist but I wonder if imagination is not another extraordinary ability unique to man, that in part is the product of the ability of "separated perspective"; conceiving of things beyond the immediacy of what we see before us. Our early history is extensively peppered, in many cultures with what I see as examples of imaginary considerations on the subject of a separated/abstracted perspective; from the myths and fables of the Greco-Roman Gods to the Norse gods and Egyptians and many more. At this moment I am not going into all the motivational reasons why I think man created his alter egos but I can't think of any early cultures that do not employ, sometimes very complex imaginative constructions from the basis of a "separated perspective". Although these examples contain a number of other deeply philosophical imponderables most notably death, they are most certainly considerations on the theme of an abstracted perspective, perhaps most obvious seen in the greek/roman gods.
Antaganus: Just in case you've got yourself lost in the ramble, albeit quite an interesting one, you're supposed to be showing where "the good" in man has come from.....love the romans gods bit, so true; mans alter ego, so true.
Thank you Antaganus, I'm getting there, As you very correctly pointed out there are some very good men and women and whose "goodness" is not a part of our animal nature. I just wanted to show you the bedrock on which "good" and indeed our sense of morality has come from; that without the certain abilities: abstract thinking, imagination and empathy such notions as morality and good would not be possible. Without the abilities of seeing an altered perspective with empathic self awareness we would not be in a position to see a very particular paradoxical dichotomy.
Antaganus: A What?
Well to explain, I would like to tell your another story Antaganus, it's about death that I mentioned a moment ago
and paintings.
Angaganus: Paintings? Go for It
I believe something happened to man a long time ago; an extraordinary awareness that unfolded from the pages of his new found self awareness; when mankind was still in his infancy, truly a moment when a spec of knowledge led to a cascade of thoughts and feelings....
Angaganus: Oh do get on with it.
... the moment when truely Adam eat the apple of knowledge...
Antaganus: REALY ....
I know I am life.... I know I will die
For an ego centric being, driven by a motivation for selfish survival, to become aware that all of it ends in inevitable death, the very thing he is trying to avoid, is a bit of a mind twister: no wonder he made the alter ego of his immortal gods! No other animal has a concept of death in the manner that man does. Although we, to day, too have this awareness we are brought up with this knowledge from our earliest years; it can still be the food for morbid contemplation, the inevitable consequence to life, is death.
Antaganus: Get on with the story !
Ok here it is: imagine yourself as a man living as a hunter gatherer, its early morning, a chilling breeze greets a rising sun. Standing on a promontory overlooking a misted landscape, you clasp your spear tightly. Today you hunt mammoth. In the back of your mind are some very disturbing thoughts that rest uneasily in your mind but you put them aside. Adrenaline rising; your excited at the prospect of the hunt, the promise of food and warmth drives you on. A cry goes up from a fellow hunter. He points and there it is, a mammoth in the distance .... the hunt is on.
The hunt is long and arduous. Your band of hunters eventually catch up with the animal as the sun reaches its zenith. The massive beast turns and stands its ground; flailing it trunk and tusks in defiance it charges and then continues to run again, and again it stops to defy the hunters. But mottled blood patches stain is fur, from the pears that found their mark. Eventually it shows signs of weakening; in desperation it makes its final stand. The outcome is inevitable. It is you on the animal. The right position to place the deadly blow. You stand poised, spear charged for final act.
Time stops for a split moment. Your can feel the heaving body of the beast as it struggles for breath, the pounding of your own heart in your head. You can see the terror in its eyes .... and you remember, in that fleeting moment those resting uneasy feeling come flooding back: I am killing this beast. You plunge the spear head deep into the beast. You watch the flickering embers of life trickle away. Its is dead.....
Antaganus: Oh BOO HOO,, what a load of sentimental cobblers.
....That night you celebrate. The security, the achievement; your family fed, warm, but as the embers of the fire wain, you remember "that" moment and consider the paradoxical dichotomy: my liveing is anothers death.
You know what death is, you've well consider it and with your empathic self awareness you can see that for the mammoth, your living, is (at his expense) a bad thing. However unwillingly it has given its life for you, to live. Maybe it is the turbulent emotions you feel, that tomorrow will see you paint the image of your mammoth, on your cave walls, to he who has given you life, in reverence.
Antaganus: you were suppose to be telling me where good came from, im sorry I just don't see where this sentimental story has got you in that regard? And I definitely don't get what a paradoxical dichotomy is.
Well the paradox is; that "good" (from two different perspectives; (the dichotomy; you and the mammoth)) are different, contradictory, what is good for you is bad for the mammoth and visa versa.
Antaganus: ah OK see that, but how does that show anything about goodness?
well yes thats a bit more convoluted: in part the answer resides in the nature of man as a selfish (no pejorative) animal and in the nature of good as an abstract quality. For an animal good has only one perspective good for me, (an animal unlike man has none of the abilities i've talked about) to consider anything beyond that, but when man steps out of that animal perspective into an abstracted perspective he can sees that "good" no longer just resides with himself but in fact his very existence has a degree of flawed impotence; his dependence on killing, that could see him as being bad in regard towards other living things. such a realization is a bruise to his ego. He can have a concept of being bad. perhaps the motivation to create the gods of his alter ego?
Antaganus: Are you saying that in essence our notion of morality came from our being able to see ourselves as being bad ?.... wow just a tad ironic but I do see where you're coming from. Ok but that kind of plays into my court; man in seeing that he can be bad he can do good so you're kind-of agreeing with me that man is good? moral?
No. Morality is just a word that denotes the notions of good or bad (usually behaviour) it does not quantify what is good or bad nor does it inherently give motivation to be good or bad.
Antaganus: AH OK so why do people do good things?
Some people! Well if you remember right at the beginning of the my answer to the question; What would be better? I looked at what I saw as the the hidden motivation to our existence where a I asserted that it is our animal instincts, that is the base motivation to our behaviour; (competitive) survive and procreate, which has lead us to this conversation. A paragraph or two back I talked about "The duality" where we can either live from our instinctual nature or a principled belief. Clearly, for some, the principles of a considered thinking lead them to to take particular actions that we can consider out with the "Nature" of the instinctual programing. [It is important that we make a separation between the programing itself and the nature of the programming. I see and believe that the programming to survive is the the only motivation there can be but that the nature of that programming; selfish competitive survival is changeable.] Our history is peppered with examples of people that have demonstrated to varying degrees principle lead actions. I am of the opinion that it has been the influence of individuals that has, through their good works been responsible for all the social caring changes in history. And subsequently, It is very true that elements of what we call our civilised societies are the product of principled led, good endeavours.
Antaganus: Ah! see, man is good.
Yes, such examples of good might give weight to the suggestion that man is good, but here lies the battle-ground of the Duality. It is the element of contradictory directions between the instinctual and principled decision making in regard to our behaviour that sees the nature of the duality as a battle ground : Although the motivation of survival is shared the method of obtaining it differs. Such contradictory approaches must beg the question which will win? Our animal instincts or our principled decision? It is my contention that unless we are fully cognicent of and understand the nature of this duality and therefore are capable of exercising a principled decision, we will revert to the "innate/failsafe" of our instinctual nature, and no time more so when in a pressured situation; a time when we need considered principles the most. Echos of " you cannot serve two masters for you will love one and despise the other.
Antaganus: I have to concede that you may be right: I see in man's reactive nature, when confronted with threatening pressured situations, as being motivated by his instinctual thinking; and that although this thinking may not be obvious at other time it probably is the underlying motivation of our survival. But surely that is just the way things are how on earth are you going to change that?
So you do concede that It would be better if we could work to something other than our instinctual motivation?
Antaganus: Well yes I suppose so, inasmuch as I can see that the instinctual does have some serious flaws.
And that if we could live from a principled belief structure things would be better?
Antaganus: Hey don't push it ! I didn't say that.
Ok but as you saw from the petri dish there is good intellectual reasoning to be motivated for change, and that with the power of convicted belief, as shown in the example of the sceptics: Matrix film, we can, if convinced, have the ability to change the method of motivation?
Antaganus: Mmmmm well in theory .... may be.. but like I said, all you utopian dreamers come up with the ideas but to make that leap from the theoretical to reality is the bit I want to see... an anyways,... ok we deff have a bit of a problem granted...
"Understatement"
Antaganus: ...but what you have shown me is the flaws in the instinctual: and yes I do get the whole Duality bit but assuming for a moment that we could do something about it, you promised me a comparative between the two motivations, so now show me the good in what you're suggesting; of principled living.
AHhh, well that is a bit more difficult, just by the nature of things... can I tell you another story Antaganus ...?
Antaganus: Oh god ... ok go on then, if you must.
Imagine you are a mechanism; any mechanism, and you live in a box. Everything you know is defined by the mechanism: your whole existence and the nature of the box you live in; that is all you know and have ever known. One day you come across another box with a mechanism in it. You know nothing about this box and the mechanism that resides inside it, your natural assumption is that it is similar to you, except a label on the outside tells you that it is "different".
Question: How would you quantify the box and its contents..? well you couldn't as everything you know relates to your own box and its existence, it is virtually impossibly to consider anything outside of your mechanism you could only relate to the box in terms of your own box.
Antaganus: Sorry I really don't get it. It sounds like you're saying it is either too difficult to explain or i'm too thick to get it.
Im saying that to use our current mechanism of existence to conceive and analyze a new mechanism of existence is
virtually impossible.
Antaganus: You hardly need a story to tell me that, so now what?
Well you're right, so what now...well to go beyond the confines of our box is very difficult but man is amazing and from the slightest sparks of inspiration and imagination we can, I feel, transcend out of our box to see beyond; to visions .
Antaganus: Oh here we go lol
Yes I thought your cynical attitude might have that response Antaganus but if you think about other situations where man has realised his dreams; flight, traveling to the moon, all would have started with visions so why not about our thinking for the future?
Antaganus: Fair point I suppose
Well the following is a poem, a vision that although a very pale reflection of what I felt, goes some way to explain my new mechanism.
Some people! Well if you remember right at the beginning of the my answer to the question; What would be better? I looked at what I saw as the the hidden motivation to our existence where a I asserted that it is our animal instincts, that is the base motivation to our behaviour; (competitive) survive and procreate, which has lead us to this conversation. A paragraph or two back I talked about "The duality" where we can either live from our instinctual nature or a principled belief. Clearly, for some, the principles of a considered thinking lead them to to take particular actions that we can consider out with the "Nature" of the instinctual programing. [It is important that we make a separation between the programing itself and the nature of the programming. I see and believe that the programming to survive is the the only motivation there can be but that the nature of that programming; selfish competitive survival is changeable.] Our history is peppered with examples of people that have demonstrated to varying degrees principle lead actions. I am of the opinion that it has been the influence of individuals that has, through their good works been responsible for all the social caring changes in history. And subsequently, It is very true that elements of what we call our civilised societies are the product of principled led, good endeavours.
Antaganus: Ah! see, man is good.
Yes, such examples of good might give weight to the suggestion that man is good, but here lies the battle-ground of the Duality. It is the element of contradictory directions between the instinctual and principled decision making in regard to our behaviour that sees the nature of the duality as a battle ground : Although the motivation of survival is shared the method of obtaining it differs. Such contradictory approaches must beg the question which will win? Our animal instincts or our principled decision? It is my contention that unless we are fully cognicent of and understand the nature of this duality and therefore are capable of exercising a principled decision, we will revert to the "innate/failsafe" of our instinctual nature, and no time more so when in a pressured situation; a time when we need considered principles the most. Echos of " you cannot serve two masters for you will love one and despise the other.
Antaganus: I have to concede that you may be right: I see in man's reactive nature, when confronted with threatening pressured situations, as being motivated by his instinctual thinking; and that although this thinking may not be obvious at other time it probably is the underlying motivation of our survival. But surely that is just the way things are how on earth are you going to change that?
So you do concede that It would be better if we could work to something other than our instinctual motivation?
Antaganus: Well yes I suppose so, inasmuch as I can see that the instinctual does have some serious flaws.
And that if we could live from a principled belief structure things would be better?
Antaganus: Hey don't push it ! I didn't say that.
Ok but as you saw from the petri dish there is good intellectual reasoning to be motivated for change, and that with the power of convicted belief, as shown in the example of the sceptics: Matrix film, we can, if convinced, have the ability to change the method of motivation?
Antaganus: Mmmmm well in theory .... may be.. but like I said, all you utopian dreamers come up with the ideas but to make that leap from the theoretical to reality is the bit I want to see... an anyways,... ok we deff have a bit of a problem granted...
"Understatement"
Antaganus: ...but what you have shown me is the flaws in the instinctual: and yes I do get the whole Duality bit but assuming for a moment that we could do something about it, you promised me a comparative between the two motivations, so now show me the good in what you're suggesting; of principled living.
AHhh, well that is a bit more difficult, just by the nature of things... can I tell you another story Antaganus ...?
Antaganus: Oh god ... ok go on then, if you must.
Imagine you are a mechanism; any mechanism, and you live in a box. Everything you know is defined by the mechanism: your whole existence and the nature of the box you live in; that is all you know and have ever known. One day you come across another box with a mechanism in it. You know nothing about this box and the mechanism that resides inside it, your natural assumption is that it is similar to you, except a label on the outside tells you that it is "different".
Question: How would you quantify the box and its contents..? well you couldn't as everything you know relates to your own box and its existence, it is virtually impossibly to consider anything outside of your mechanism you could only relate to the box in terms of your own box.
Antaganus: Sorry I really don't get it. It sounds like you're saying it is either too difficult to explain or i'm too thick to get it.
Im saying that to use our current mechanism of existence to conceive and analyze a new mechanism of existence is
virtually impossible.
Antaganus: You hardly need a story to tell me that, so now what?
Well you're right, so what now...well to go beyond the confines of our box is very difficult but man is amazing and from the slightest sparks of inspiration and imagination we can, I feel, transcend out of our box to see beyond; to visions .
Antaganus: Oh here we go lol
Yes I thought your cynical attitude might have that response Antaganus but if you think about other situations where man has realised his dreams; flight, traveling to the moon, all would have started with visions so why not about our thinking for the future?
Antaganus: Fair point I suppose
Well the following is a poem, a vision that although a very pale reflection of what I felt, goes some way to explain my new mechanism.
I find it hard to explain exactly what I mean by visionary writing without it sounding like pretentious mystical nonsense: leaving myself open to the accusation of being up my own ......... proverbial.... But there is an emotional feeling when one "sees" a reality for the first time in a particular way. One of the first thing is that I have is an absolute conviction of its rightness, that comes across with an amazing clarity in my mind's eye. It's like seeing a dawn as the sun rise over a mountain and watching the valleys and landscape beneath being flooded with light. I know very prosaic :)
For 40 years now I have been on a journey. I embarked on this journey as young teenager when I was looking for answers to a host of questions in the years of my teenage angst. Like a voyage of discovery, my journey of thoughts has been incredible. I have found many amazing truths and new awarenesses along the way. I have travelled down many a lonely path that seemed deserted; sometimes my discoveries made me fearful sometimes elated, many times lost and lonely. But along the way I had a vision that surpassed all others. Only glimpses at first, like a light that began to make sense of so many of my questions. As time when on my vision became more concrete and complete It is this vision that I want to share with you now in the hope that it may answer some of your questions for you.
For 40 years now I have been on a journey. I embarked on this journey as young teenager when I was looking for answers to a host of questions in the years of my teenage angst. Like a voyage of discovery, my journey of thoughts has been incredible. I have found many amazing truths and new awarenesses along the way. I have travelled down many a lonely path that seemed deserted; sometimes my discoveries made me fearful sometimes elated, many times lost and lonely. But along the way I had a vision that surpassed all others. Only glimpses at first, like a light that began to make sense of so many of my questions. As time when on my vision became more concrete and complete It is this vision that I want to share with you now in the hope that it may answer some of your questions for you.
The Vision
What is it ?
It is the simplest of truths, facile and banal in appearance and yet
the stuff of revolution.
It has light within its meaning, that in its radiance illuminates an
understanding of things beyond the normal boundaries of human thought,
that sets the soul of man at peace with himself.
It is not the meaning of life but yet it gives life meaning.
It is both hidden and mystical and yet sublimely obvious.
It is at the end of a long journey of thought that steps outside the
conformity of the norms, to let us see the mechanism of our existence.
It is in our dreams of utopia and yet firmly stands within reality.
It gives understanding, to set a destiny for man.
(Read this as if it was referring to you)
You are wonderful,
You are life.
Your wonderfulness is not conditional.
It is not because you’re:
Good or bad,
Rich or poor,
Strong or weak,
Successful or a failure,
It is that you are the miracle that is life.
You are unique and yet share that same wonderfulness with all other life.
It is the simplest of truths is undeniable and yet perhaps that very
simplicity and triteness can mark it as hollow sentiment,
but that belies the magnitudes of the implications
when taken as a reality.
To believe this as a truth, as a conscious conviction,
to feel the wonderfulness
of being wonderful,
is to live life with eyes that can see:
Your own worth,
The worth of others
And give an understanding to existence.
Life is a totality; all forms of life within the totality are equal.
All life is subject to the instinctual laws of nature.
And man is no exception to these rules:
Survive to procreate’
A competitive struggle
That is “the game” of life.
But man is unique.
His uniqueness is not of his making,
it is part of an unfolding dynamic "miracle".
It fell to man to be given a speck of knowledge:
An awareness of his own existence.
But with that speck of knowledge man can see
The game for what it is
And in his mind step outside its confines.
He is set free to see;
He lives his life in a false dichotomy of being both,
Player and spectator, actor and audience.
It is as a spectator/audience he can understand the players/actors
It is a spectator/audience he can change the nature of the game.
and that change can be set in an attitude
an attitude described in one word
Love:
to love ourselves, to love others, and to love the totality of existence.
What is it ?
It is the simplest of truths, facile and banal in appearance and yet
the stuff of revolution.
It has light within its meaning, that in its radiance illuminates an
understanding of things beyond the normal boundaries of human thought,
that sets the soul of man at peace with himself.
It is not the meaning of life but yet it gives life meaning.
It is both hidden and mystical and yet sublimely obvious.
It is at the end of a long journey of thought that steps outside the
conformity of the norms, to let us see the mechanism of our existence.
It is in our dreams of utopia and yet firmly stands within reality.
It gives understanding, to set a destiny for man.
(Read this as if it was referring to you)
You are wonderful,
You are life.
Your wonderfulness is not conditional.
It is not because you’re:
Good or bad,
Rich or poor,
Strong or weak,
Successful or a failure,
It is that you are the miracle that is life.
You are unique and yet share that same wonderfulness with all other life.
It is the simplest of truths is undeniable and yet perhaps that very
simplicity and triteness can mark it as hollow sentiment,
but that belies the magnitudes of the implications
when taken as a reality.
To believe this as a truth, as a conscious conviction,
to feel the wonderfulness
of being wonderful,
is to live life with eyes that can see:
Your own worth,
The worth of others
And give an understanding to existence.
Life is a totality; all forms of life within the totality are equal.
All life is subject to the instinctual laws of nature.
And man is no exception to these rules:
Survive to procreate’
A competitive struggle
That is “the game” of life.
But man is unique.
His uniqueness is not of his making,
it is part of an unfolding dynamic "miracle".
It fell to man to be given a speck of knowledge:
An awareness of his own existence.
But with that speck of knowledge man can see
The game for what it is
And in his mind step outside its confines.
He is set free to see;
He lives his life in a false dichotomy of being both,
Player and spectator, actor and audience.
It is as a spectator/audience he can understand the players/actors
It is a spectator/audience he can change the nature of the game.
and that change can be set in an attitude
an attitude described in one word
Love:
to love ourselves, to love others, and to love the totality of existence.
hat is the vision, as best a picture as I can paint, but this writing can be nothing more than like someone else's holiday snap experience. To find it as a reality for yourself you must take your own journey of discovery to see this vision and make it your own within your heart.
To those that seek this vision and take up their journeys and those that
don't alike, I send you my heartfelt love to you all,
to the “ Wonderful. ”
Sisideas
Antaganus: ... (silence)....... Im thinking....... Ya OK I get it; we probably do have the means to change things to better and yes I guess if we all loved each other the world be better, couldn't be any worse.....but it all smells too hippy for my liking ... and anyways You dreamers are all the same, you make up some woolly pie in the sky utopia that's all very hippy but you just aren't living in the real world. Loads of do-gooders have tried to find a utopia if it was possible do you not think it would have happened by now? With all the conflict and strife in the world I can't see much change happening anytime soon.
Antaganus's third question:
click here > How do you hope to achieve this better world
To those that seek this vision and take up their journeys and those that
don't alike, I send you my heartfelt love to you all,
to the “ Wonderful. ”
Sisideas
Antaganus: ... (silence)....... Im thinking....... Ya OK I get it; we probably do have the means to change things to better and yes I guess if we all loved each other the world be better, couldn't be any worse.....but it all smells too hippy for my liking ... and anyways You dreamers are all the same, you make up some woolly pie in the sky utopia that's all very hippy but you just aren't living in the real world. Loads of do-gooders have tried to find a utopia if it was possible do you not think it would have happened by now? With all the conflict and strife in the world I can't see much change happening anytime soon.
Antaganus's third question:
click here > How do you hope to achieve this better world