| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Joseph H" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2005 05:34:43 AM |
| Object: |
A Human Destiny |
So something happened a little while ago, chemistry-stuff, and, hey, we
could think. Each one of us with our own take on life, our own set of
gifts to bring to the party. We must treasure that. Whatever
institutions we set up must honour that. The individual is prime.
This, by the way, is not a natural right. Nature does not confer
rights, only capabilities. We must make it a right. Seeing and
respecting our individual uniqueness must be part of our moral response
to life. Being thus, and not some so-called inalienable possession,
rights link us in a common commitment to respect and a common awareness
of the contingency of existence.
Our take on life can be quite incisive. We may see right through to the
heart of existence. Nature has finally produced a creature that may
understand its workings and that may learn its past. In the context of
12, or so, billion years of universe I see this as a vast privilege. I
also it as an obligation. Do we take on board our unique capacity as a
species - or do we not?
During all our history to date we had no sense of this privilege. We
concocted other roles. The chaos of history also saw us deprive many of
the ability to exercise these fundamntal capacities mentioned above.
Now we are hurriedly redressing this - as we should. But it is an
individualising exercise - in an age tending towards globalising.
Hence, there is a dissonance, a disparity between our individual
aspirations and our global task.
Maybe we should take on board our capacity as a species to understand
nature? Maybe we should take on the role as the eyes, the ears and the
voice of the known universe? Maybe this would underscore and inspire
the vast undertakings required of us in the years ahead?
Joseph H
www.humanisation.org
.
|
|
| User: "codesmith" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
19 Aug 2005 10:58:52 PM |
|
|
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in message
news:1124102083.089830.35490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So something happened a little while ago, chemistry-stuff, and, hey, we
could think.
Yeah dude. Like, in Chem 101, when I was trying to get a handle on covalent
vs. ionic bonds, and then orbitals, moles, kinetic theory, buffer solutions,
enthalpy...
....and then organic chem and stereochemistry and all that ***** -- mix this,
get that! Who'd have thought that the origins of consciousness followed
EXACTLY from those same equations!
Ever greater layers of chemical complexity on top of the same molecular
foundation and -- poof! -- consciousness results such that it recursively
discovers the foundations of chemistry from which itself was spawned!
"Hey! We can think!" And thus my molecules should "respect" your
molecules:
your molecular and "individual uniqueness" demanding a "moral response" from
my own batch of chemical soup!
Yeah... I'm OK with that. I guess. I mean, the alternative?? Horrors!
Thank God (oops, just kidding) I read Daniel Dennet and learned of
"freedom evolving", such that I could squash that chemical meme that hinted
to me that just maybe there might be another explanation -- albeit one
beyond
a rather complex and chaotic collection of chemical reactions. No! Not
THAT
alternative!
Mere chemistry is much better....
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~splash/life.html
Cheers.
Codesmith
Remove the _...
codesmith_@char_ter_.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
21 Aug 2005 11:31:44 AM |
|
|
codesmith wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in message
news:1124102083.089830.35490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So something happened a little while ago, chemistry-stuff, and, hey, we
could think.
Yeah dude. Like, in Chem 101, when I was trying to get a handle on covalent
vs. ionic bonds, and then orbitals, moles, kinetic theory, buffer solutions,
enthalpy...
...and then organic chem and stereochemistry and all that ***** -- mix this,
get that! Who'd have thought that the origins of consciousness followed
EXACTLY from those same equations!
Ever greater layers of chemical complexity on top of the same molecular
foundation and -- poof! -- consciousness results such that it recursively
discovers the foundations of chemistry from which itself was spawned!
"Hey! We can think!" And thus my molecules should "respect" your
molecules:
your molecular and "individual uniqueness" demanding a "moral response" from
my own batch of chemical soup!
Yeah... I'm OK with that. I guess. I mean, the alternative?? Horrors!
Thank God (oops, just kidding) I read Daniel Dennet and learned of
"freedom evolving", such that I could squash that chemical meme that hinted
to me that just maybe there might be another explanation -- albeit one
beyond
a rather complex and chaotic collection of chemical reactions. No! Not
THAT
alternative!
Very interesting posting. Not quite sure if you'r with me or "agin" me,
as we say here. If you're with me..I don't understand your Dennet
allusion. If you're agin me...I still don't understand it. If we're
chemistry writ wise and loud then let us embrace our ststus by taking
charge of the rest. Deeply suspicious, I know. Political correctness
insists that we allow things fall apart rather than ever take
responsibility.
Ciao
Mere chemistry is much better....
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~splash/life.html
Cheers.
Codesmith
Remove the _...
codesmith_@char_ter_.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
15 Aug 2005 11:59:32 AM |
|
|
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in news:1124102083.089830.35490
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
So something happened a little while ago, chemistry-stuff, and, hey, we
could think. Each one of us with our own take on life, our own set of
gifts to bring to the party. We must treasure that. Whatever
institutions we set up must honour that. The individual is prime.
[. . .]
Maybe we should take on board our capacity as a species to understand
nature? Maybe we should take on the role as the eyes, the ears and the
voice of the known universe? Maybe this would underscore and inspire
the vast undertakings required of us in the years ahead?
Now, if you put those two together, Joseph, you might find your way to the
right track.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
15 Aug 2005 03:27:59 PM |
|
|
Publius wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in news:1124102083.089830.35490
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
So something happened a little while ago, chemistry-stuff, and, hey, we
could think. Each one of us with our own take on life, our own set of
gifts to bring to the party. We must treasure that. Whatever
institutions we set up must honour that. The individual is prime.
[. . .]
Maybe we should take on board our capacity as a species to understand
nature? Maybe we should take on the role as the eyes, the ears and the
voice of the known universe? Maybe this would underscore and inspire
the vast undertakings required of us in the years ahead?
Now, if you put those two together, Joseph, you might find your way to the
right track.
Good to hear from you again, Good Publius.
Finding one's way to the right track involves recognising that the
track one is on is the wrong one. That can be difficult. I'm not so
much talking about myself here - though I am well versed on wrong
tracks - but about people in general. The paragraphs you snipped might
seem to be you to be irrelevant. To me, however, they are crucial. They
refer to the reality most of us see - our past and our present. This
reality - its complexity, its excesses, its failures, its successes,
even - blocks access to the reality, such as it is, that I see. Thus,
to essay a new thought I must challenge an old thought, or a set of old
thoughts.
My ideas are really quite simple - have actually become quite simple
through a process of attrition here on Usenet. Our arrival signalled
the entry of a creature who might know the nature of existence. This
fact made us extremely significant. The chaos of our history and our
lack of knowledge obscured this significance and saw us deprived of our
fundamental rights. Lately we have re-established these rights. We
might feel that this - having rights - is the be-all and the end-all of
existence. But this will not serve us well as we seek to secure
cooperation for the challenges ahead. We need a vision of a human
destiny, or quest, or purpose, to inspire and direct this effort. Hence
this posting.
Good to hear from you again, sir. You stayed urbane while others grew
savage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
16 Aug 2005 10:22:41 AM |
|
|
To Publius:
A few thoughts coming into my head now, chemistry-stuff....
Always thought it was intelligence that moved us ahead of the rest. Now
wonder about that. How would an increase in intelligence work in
practice? Who woull be more intelligent. all of us or some of us? If
only some of us how would they influence the others? People are not
totably receptive to the intelligent few. Also, would theses nerdheads
be more likely to breed? Hardly.
So, coming to the conclusion - today - that it wasn't intelligence on
its own. Maybe, it was the capacity to walk away from predetermined
behaviour - i.e. the freedom to say no to the instinctive way of doing
things. Maybe there was a wild strain out there - probably Irish - who
said "No fucking way!".
And that would have consequences. Have we ever noticed a cat voicing
alienation or seeking a belief? Instinct does not merely propel action;
it also provides the wherewithall to go on with existence. But without
instinct, that form of instinct, these new creatures would have to keep
asking questions and finding reasons to go on living. Hence, religion
and hence too our insatiable urge to find out.
Joseph H
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
16 Aug 2005 03:57:15 PM |
|
|
Publius wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in news:1124205681.313838.311770
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Always thought it was intelligence that moved us ahead of the rest. Now
wonder about that. How would an increase in intelligence work in
practice? Who woull be more intelligent. all of us or some of us? If
only some of us how would they influence the others? People are not
totably receptive to the intelligent few. Also, would theses nerdheads
be more likely to breed? Hardly.
Always, only some would be more intelligent. That is true of any natural
variation.
I accept that. But this could only occur after the break was made in
the first place - when we were in the realm of intelligence and had
left instinct behind. If instinct has a rigid hold on behaviour, if it
doesn't even countenance discussion (not that there was any
discussion)...then that stranglehold had to be broken first. No doubt,
it was some mixture of intelligence and rebellion.
Perhaps we should settle on a definition of "intelligence." My own favorite
is, "the capacity to generate new strategies for achieving a desired end."
It involves the ability to perceive new patterns and relationships. It is
thus more akin to creativity than to learning. All primates are pretty good
at learning, both from experience and by example. They can discern what
works and what does not work in fairly few trials, and note what works for
others, and adopt their strategies.
I think your definition, as you say, favours creativity. Insight,
clarity, perception...are also important components. Why limit the
concept? There are many ways to skin a cat.
Because all members of the group can learn, the enhanced intelligence of
the few benefits the entire group, because, even though they would never
have invented some novelty themselves, the others can quickly learn to use
it once invented. No doubt some primitive genius invented the bow and
arrow. But as soon as his fellows observed that he could actually bring
down an antelope with it, they adopted it (and of course some of them would
have become more adept at using it than the inventor).
Thus, because of the inventiveness of a few, the survival prospects of the
entire group are enhanced. And because of that, whatever genetic factors
were involved in producing the geniuses are preserved also, even if the
geniuses do not personally produce more offspring than average.
Good example - but probably this person wouldn't be considered
intelligent at all. He would be a handyman, someone who spent his life
bending twigs.
So, coming to the conclusion - today - that it wasn't intelligence on
its own. Maybe, it was the capacity to walk away from predetermined
behaviour - i.e. the freedom to say no to the instinctive way of doing
things. Or Maybe there was a wild strain out there - probably Irish -
who said "No fucking way!".
Or simply said, "I know a better way." Which is the same thing as
intelligence, as defined above.
That would come later, I think. The real point of my earlier posting
was to draw attention to the security that instinct provides. It is an
automatic response to life. Take it away and suddenly life demands many
answers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
15 Aug 2005 06:08:19 AM |
|
|
Joseph H wrote:
...
in an age tending towards globalising.
In an age, where our societies are menanced by the pressure of
multinationals to globalise.
Hence, there is a dissonance, a disparity between our individual
aspirations and our global task.
A task that does nto actually exist.
Acting out of self-interest is good enough to solve the problems we can
overcome.
Maybe we should take on board our capacity as a species to understand
nature?
Why should we do that?
Maybe we should take on the role as the eyes, the ears and the
voice of the known universe?
I hate to repeat, but to what purpose?
Maybe this would underscore and inspire the vast undertakings
required of us in the years ahead?
Maybe it would simply distract us from more important tasks?
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
15 Aug 2005 07:39:09 AM |
|
|
AE wrote:
Joseph H wrote:
...
in an age tending towards globalising.
Hallo again, Squire!
In an age, where our societies are menanced by the pressure of
multinationals to globalise.
Yes, that is part of the process. But the process is far wider than
that. The fact that you and I can communicate so readily is also part
of the process.
Hence, there is a dissonance, a disparity between our individual
aspirations and our global task.
A task that does nto actually exist.
In the sense that nobody has ordained that we must do such and such a
thing, no, there is no such task. In the sense that globalisation is
happening anyway and that it poses huge problems in terms of trade,
migration, cultural confusion, terrorism etc and that these problems
impact on individual states and that, therefore, pressure will build up
on the leaders in those states...then we will inevitably seek to solve
those problems.
Acting out of self-interest is good enough to solve the problems we can
overcome.
It's not, I'm afraid. Acting out of self-interest alone will lead to
war - which is in nobody's interest.
Maybe we should take on board our capacity as a species to understand
nature?
Why should we do that?
Because, first of all, we have that capacity anyway; because, secondly,
doing so will endow us with a stronger sense of our real linkage with
the rest of nature (as opposed to the putative connections we have
formed down the years); because, thirdly, establishing and developing
that linkage will increase our control over the vagaries of nature and
will also facillitate us in our efforts to harness nature's power for
the future; and because, fourthly, the sense of identity and
commonality we derive from such a decision and such a role will assist
us in the cooperation we require to solve the problems we may encounter
ahead.
Maybe we should take on the role as the eyes, the ears and the
voice of the known universe?
I hate to repeat, but to what purpose?
See above.
Maybe this would underscore and inspire the vast undertakings
required of us in the years ahead?
Maybe it would simply distract us from more important tasks?
More immediate tasks, yes - like self-gratification or winning the next
election. Maybe we should be less immersed in the immediate and more
concerned for the future - and I'm not even talking about the distant
future here.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
15 Aug 2005 09:08:18 AM |
|
|
Joseph H wrote:
AE wrote:
Joseph H wrote:
...
In an age, where our societies are menanced by the pressure of
multinationals to globalise.
Yes, that is part of the process. But the process is far wider than
that. The fact that you and I can communicate so readily is also part
of the process.
It's a side-effect of the same technological development.
What I do not understand is, why people should accept and even promote
globalisation, while there is not obvious merit.
Hence, there is a dissonance, a disparity between our individual
aspirations and our global task.
A task that does not actually exist.
In the sense that nobody has ordained that we must do such and such a
thing, no, there is no such task. In the sense that globalisation is
happening anyway and that it poses huge problems in terms of trade,
migration, cultural confusion, terrorism etc and that these problems
impact on individual states and that, therefore, pressure will build up
on the leaders in those states...then we will inevitably seek to solve
those problems.
Maybe we can find a way to solve the problem of globalisation by
actively fighting it?
Acting out of self-interest is good enough to solve the problems we can
overcome.
It's not, I'm afraid. Acting out of self-interest alone will lead to
war - which is in nobody's interest.
I'd guess, your statement refutes itself:
If it's in nobody's interest, it's not happening out of anybody's
self-interest, but only due to short-sighted policy.
Maybe we should take on board our capacity as a species to understand
nature?
Why should we do that?
Because, first of all, we have that capacity anyway;
I think, tis was one of the reasons mentinoed, why the US used the
atomic bomb at the end of WW II: Because they had the capacity anyway.
As you might see, that's a quite questionable argument.
because, secondly, doing so will endow us with a stronger sense of
our real linkage with the rest of nature (as opposed to the putative
connections we have formed down the years);
I don't see what way "take on board our capacity as a species to
understand nature" is linked to 'do applied ecology'.
What disturbs most is you mentioning "our capacity as a species": While
every single member of our species has this capacity, it's not something
that requires the whole species. A small group of ecologists can do the
job quite well, and if their findings are useful, they will be used.
because, thirdly, establishing and developing that linkage will
increase our control over the vagaries of nature and will also
facillitate us in our efforts to harness nature's power for the
future;
see above
and because, fourthly, the sense of identity and
commonality we derive from such a decision and such a role will assist
us in the cooperation we require to solve the problems we may encounter
ahead.
And right here we are reaching the point, where the disturbance becomes
obvious: It's not the species that acts, but it is a number of individuals.
Forget the species, but think about independent entities: Each of them
is acting out of self-interest. Nevertheless they are able to organize
wherever required and at every scale required. Once a job is done, the
organisation falls apart and we've got individuals only, and the other
groups that still exist for some purpose.
...
Maybe this would underscore and inspire the vast undertakings
required of us in the years ahead?
Maybe it would simply distract us from more important tasks?
...
Maybe we should be less immersed in the immediate and more concerned
for the future - and I'm not even talking about the distant future
here.
You know, what future is relevant for me (order of magnitude: 50 yr),
and what future I consider as being relevant to human beings as such
(oder of magnitude 100yr).
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
15 Aug 2005 10:07:30 AM |
|
|
AE wrote:
What I do not understand is, why people should accept and even promote
globalisation, while there is not obvious merit.
Accepting and promoting are different things. If something is happening
anyway
one might as well accept it and seek to make it as beneficial as
possible to as many as possible - including oneself. Promoting is
another matter. I'd actually promote it - or a form of it. Actually,
again, by not promoting something that's going to happen anyway one is
missing the opportunity to have an input and, therefore,conceding the
field to those whose idea of globalisation may be entirly mercenary. My
idea of globalisation is that it brings together all the various forms
of human response - cultural, political, artistic, utilitarian,
religious etc - that occurred during the 200,000 years we were
separated as a species. Now we have come together again and may pick
and choose from all the responses down the years. But what we need, or
lack, in this present situation is an ideological response that unites
the whole while not suppressing the valuable individual parts.
Maybe we can find a way to solve the problem of globalisation by
actively fighting it?
What problem?
Acting out of self-interest is good enough to solve the problems we can
overcome.
It's not, I'm afraid. Acting out of self-interest alone will lead to
war - which is in nobody's interest.
I'd guess, your statement refutes itself:
If it's in nobody's interest, it's not happening out of anybody's
self-interest, but only due to short-sighted policy.
You're a clever guy, you know that...but you are a bit of a casuist. A
lot of a casuist, actually.
Maybe we should take on board our capacity as a species to understand
nature?
Why should we do that?
Because, first of all, we have that capacity anyway;
I think, tis was one of the reasons mentinoed, why the US used the
atomic bomb at the end of WW II: Because they had the capacity anyway.
As you might see, that's a quite questionable argument.
It's one of several, of course. The point I should have made is that
our capacity to understand all of nature will not go unused. Indeed, we
may do all kinds of bizarre things - which we don't generally do.
Having a particular faculty or innate possession is somewhat different
from having a particular weapon.
because, secondly, doing so will endow us with a stronger sense of
our real linkage with the rest of nature (as opposed to the putative
connections we have formed down the years);
I don't see what way "take on board our capacity as a species to
understand nature" is linked to 'do applied ecology'.
What disturbs most is you mentioning "our capacity as a species": While
every single member of our species has this capacity, it's not something
that requires the whole species. A small group of ecologists can do the
job quite well, and if their findings are useful, they will be used.
That's true - and that's already happening. But in a smallish scale.
Until the consciousness becomes general this will continue. also,
having it as a general consciousness means that it is part of our
ideology and therefore part of our worldview.
because, thirdly, establishing and developing that linkage will
increase our control over the vagaries of nature and will also
facillitate us in our efforts to harness nature's power for the
future;
see above
and because, fourthly, the sense of identity and
commonality we derive from such a decision and such a role will assist
us in the cooperation we require to solve the problems we may encounter
ahead.
And right here we are reaching the point, where the disturbance becomes
obvious: It's not the species that acts, but it is a number of individuals.
See above.
Forget the species, but think about independent entities: Each of them
is acting out of self-interest. Nevertheless they are able to organize
wherever required and at every scale required. Once a job is done, the
organisation falls apart and we've got individuals only, and the other
groups that still exist for some purpose.
Yes, this is a constant part of what we do. What I want us to do and to
see is more ambitious. I say what I say partly because I believe it
happens to be true but also because I believe that we need such a
comprehensive vision at this time. -
You know, what future is relevant for me (order of magnitude: 50 yr),
and what future I consider as being relevant to human beings as such
(oder of magnitude 100yr).
Yes, but what future is relevant for the rest of us? Or for all of us?
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
15 Aug 2005 01:35:28 PM |
|
|
Joseph H wrote:
AE wrote:
What I do not understand is, why people should accept and even promote
globalisation, while there is not obvious merit.
Accepting and promoting are different things. If something is
happening anyway one might as well accept it and seek to make it as
beneficial as possible to as many as possible - including oneself.
Maybe that's the interesting question: Does it happen anyway?
Promoting is another matter. I'd actually promote it - or a form of
it. Actually, again, by not promoting something that's going to
happen anyway one is missing the opportunity to have an input and,
therefore,conceding the field to those whose idea of globalisation
may be entirly mercenary.
It actually is.
My idea of globalisation is that it brings together all the various
forms of human response - cultural, political, artistic, utilitarian,
religious etc - that occurred during the 200,000 years we were
separated as a species. Now we have come together again and may pick
and choose from all the responses down the years. But what we need,
or lack, in this present situation is an ideological response that
unites the whole while not suppressing the valuable individual parts.
Or we can keep globalisatoin as a fassade and actually do what we did
all the time: Plunder whatever is not able to protect itself.
Maybe we can find a way to solve the problem of globalisation by
actively fighting it?
What problem?
I consider globalisation as such a problem - a solvable problem.
...
It's not, I'm afraid. Acting out of self-interest alone will lead to
war - which is in nobody's interest.
I'd guess, your statement refutes itself:
If it's in nobody's interest, it's not happening out of anybody's
self-interest, but only due to short-sighted policy.
You're a clever guy, you know that...but you are a bit of a casuist. A
lot of a casuist, actually.
I hope so.
What could be more useful than casuistry to test a concept?
...
Because, first of all, we have that capacity anyway;
I think, tis was one of the reasons mentinoed, why the US used the
atomic bomb at the end of WW II: Because they had the capacity anyway.
As you might see, that's a quite questionable argument.
It's one of several, of course. The point I should have made is that
our capacity to understand all of nature will not go unused. Indeed, we
may do all kinds of bizarre things - which we don't generally do.
Having a particular faculty or innate possession is somewhat different
from having a particular weapon.
An interesting claim. But actually the difference between a tool and a
weapon is the intent with which it is used.
...
What disturbs most is you mentioning "our capacity as a species": While
every single member of our species has this capacity, it's not something
that requires the whole species. A small group of ecologists can do the
job quite well, and if their findings are useful, they will be used.
That's true - and that's already happening. But in a smallish scale.
Until the consciousness becomes general this will continue. also,
having it as a general consciousness means that it is part of our
ideology and therefore part of our worldview.
I don't think, actual knowledge has to spread wide to effect all - how
many people are understanding quantum mechanics? Nevertheless all are
using lasers and other quantum mashines.
...
Forget the species, but think about independent entities: Each of them
is acting out of self-interest. Nevertheless they are able to organize
wherever required and at every scale required. Once a job is done, the
organisation falls apart and we've got individuals only, and the other
groups that still exist for some purpose.
Yes, this is a constant part of what we do. What I want us to do and to
see is more ambitious. I say what I say partly because I believe it
happens to be true but also because I believe that we need such a
comprehensive vision at this time. -
You know, what future is relevant for me (order of magnitude: 50 yr),
and what future I consider as being relevant to human beings as such
(oder of magnitude 100yr).
Yes, but what future is relevant for the rest of us? Or for all of us?
For a realist is is right this time.
Of course a dreamer might imagine every time distance ...
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
15 Aug 2005 03:24:25 PM |
|
|
AE wrote:
Joseph H wrote:
AE wrote:
What I do not understand is, why people should accept and even promote
globalisation, while there is not obvious merit.
Accepting and promoting are different things. If something is
happening anyway one might as well accept it and seek to make it as
beneficial as possible to as many as possible - including oneself.
Maybe that's the interesting question: Does it happen anyway?
I think so.
Promoting is another matter. I'd actually promote it - or a form of
it. Actually, again, by not promoting something that's going to
happen anyway one is missing the opportunity to have an input and,
therefore,conceding the field to those whose idea of globalisation
may be entirly mercenary.
It actually is.
To some, yes. But I think you're focusing only on the commercial
element. How about the exchange of music, of food, of movies, of
fashion, of sport, of media, of ideas...There may be commerical
elements linked in with these too but the main thrust is just greatly
increased and vastly more immediate contact between people all over the
world.
I consider globalisation as such a problem - a solvable problem.
What could be more useful than casuistry to test a concept?
True
I don't think, actual knowledge has to spread wide to effect all - how
many people are understanding quantum mechanics? Nevertheless all are
using lasers and other quantum mashines.
Good point. But I'm edging away from the knowledge, as such. The
knowledge is important in that, as with quantum mechanics, to take your
example, it allows us much greater diversity and opportunity in using
the forces of nature. Also, the knowledge, insofar as the origin or
composition of things is concerned, will eventually prove to be the
bedrock of our view of life. If the knowledge is true, if it is a true
and fair depiction of reality, it must eventually become that bedrock.
But my emphasis now - today! - is the fact that we have the capacity to
find that knowledge and that we are the only known creature possessing
this capacity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
16 Aug 2005 01:15:40 PM |
|
|
Joseph H wrote:
AE wrote:
Joseph H wrote:
AE wrote:
What I do not understand is, why people should accept and even promote
globalisation, while there is not obvious merit.
Accepting and promoting are different things. If something is
happening anyway one might as well accept it and seek to make it as
beneficial as possible to as many as possible - including oneself.
Maybe that's the interesting question: Does it happen anyway?
I think so.
You might be wrong. But independent of that, we are able to slow down
the process.
... conceding the field to those whose idea of globalisation may
be entirly mercenary.
It actually is.
To some, yes. But I think you're focusing only on the commercial
element.
Globalisation is an expression that was first defined by economists.
How about the exchange of music, of food, of movies, of
fashion, of sport, of media, of ideas...
These things don't require globalisation. Music, food, fashion - these
things were already exchanged a century ago. At about 1900 Tango moved
from Argentinia to France and between 1910 and 1920 it came back to
Argentinia and with it gramophone records moved half around the world
(an example for media). Movies were traveling as far. Long before ideas
moved all around the planet.
There may be commerical elements linked in with these too but the
main thrust is just greatly increased and vastly more immediate
contact between people all over the world.
Glonbalisation _is_ a commercial concept, and actually it is a concept
that didn't show yet it's usefulness for anybody except the multinationals.
...
I don't think, actual knowledge has to spread wide to effect all - how
many people are understanding quantum mechanics? Nevertheless all are
using lasers and other quantum mashines.
Good point. But I'm edging away from the knowledge, as such. The
knowledge is important in that, as with quantum mechanics, to take your
example, it allows us much greater diversity and opportunity in using
the forces of nature. Also, the knowledge, insofar as the origin or
composition of things is concerned, will eventually prove to be the
bedrock of our view of life. If the knowledge is true, if it is a true
and fair depiction of reality, it must eventually become that bedrock.
But my emphasis now - today! - is the fact that we have the capacity to
find that knowledge and that we are the only known creature possessing
this capacity.
If knowledge is useful, it will spread due to it's usefulness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
16 Aug 2005 03:37:13 PM |
|
|
AE wrote:
Joseph H wrote:
AE wrote:
Joseph H wrote:
AE wrote;
Globalisation is an expression that was first defined by economists.
Well, let them define it if they want to. I'm far more concerned with
the reality of global contact. Certainly, commerce is a considerable
part of this. But commerce is a considerable part of life within each
state too. Are we to define a state only by its commercial activity?
Hardly. Likewise, we should not define globalisation by the same. You
may say that activity within a state is more "dense" than current
global activity. Certainly, civil society within a state is more
active. But global activity is catching up
How about the exchange of music, of food, of movies, of
fashion, of sport, of media, of ideas...
These things don't require globalisation. Music, food, fashion - these
things were already exchanged a century ago. At about 1900 Tango moved
from Argentinia to France and between 1910 and 1920 it came back to
Argentinia and with it gramophone records moved half around the world
(an example for media). Movies were traveling as far. Long before ideas
moved all around the planet.
All true. It's really a question of degree and amount and pace.
..
If knowledge is useful, it will spread due to it's usefulness.
It will spread now much faster than in the past.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
17 Aug 2005 12:08:49 PM |
|
|
Joseph H wrote:
AE wrote:
Globalisation is an expression that was first defined by economists.
Well, let them define it if they want to. I'm far more concerned with
the reality of global contact. Certainly, commerce is a considerable
part of this. But commerce is a considerable part of life within each
state too. Are we to define a state only by its commercial activity?
Hardly. Likewise, we should not define globalisation by the same. You
may say that activity within a state is more "dense" than current
global activity. Certainly, civil society within a state is more
active. But global activity is catching up
Maybe I should rephrase: Globalisation is a purely economic phenomenon.
All other international activities (mostly culture and science) are
independent of globalisation. Actually culture is profiting from the
diversity in our world that gets nivellated by globalisation. Science
_might_ profit from globalisation, but it might as well suffer from it.
The individuals as well in rich as in poor nations are going to suffer
from globalisation, because the distance between rich and poor in each
nation will grow dramatically.
How about the exchange of music, of food, of movies, of
fashion, of sport, of media, of ideas...
These things don't require globalisation. Music, food, fashion - these
things were already exchanged a century ago. At about 1900 Tango moved
from Argentinia to France and between 1910 and 1920 it came back to
Argentinia and with it gramophone records moved half around the world
(an example for media). Movies were traveling as far. Long before ideas
moved all around the planet.
All true. It's really a question of degree and amount and pace.
See above.
If knowledge is useful, it will spread due to it's usefulness.
It will spread now much faster than in the past.
Due to better means of communication, but not due to globalisation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
17 Aug 2005 06:20:51 PM |
|
|
AE wrote:
Maybe I should rephrase: Globalisation is a purely economic phenomenon.
All other international activities (mostly culture and science) are
independent of globalisation. Actually culture is profiting from the
diversity in our world that gets nivellated by globalisation. Science
_might_ profit from globalisation, but it might as well suffer from it.
The individuals as well in rich as in poor nations are going to suffer
from globalisation, because the distance between rich and poor in each
nation will grow dramatically.
Nivellated?
You seem fixated by commerce. When I speak of Globalisation I mean
simply the vastly increrasing awareness of and contact with other human
beings across the globe - so that gradually we are becoming a global
society. .
If knowledge is useful, it will spread due to it's usefulness.
It will spread now much faster than in the past.
Due to better means of communication, but not due to globalisation.
But...this IS globalisation, this mixture of...everything. You can
limit it to commerce if you choose to - but it's bypassing and
overwehelming commerce.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
18 Aug 2005 12:53:10 PM |
|
|
Joseph H wrote:
AE wrote:
Joseph H wrote:
...
Maybe I should rephrase: Globalisation is a purely economic phenomenon.
All other international activities (mostly culture and science) are
independent of globalisation. Actually culture is profiting from the
diversity in our world that gets nivellated by globalisation. Science
_might_ profit from globalisation, but it might as well suffer from it.
The individuals as well in rich as in poor nations are going to suffer
from globalisation, because the distance between rich and poor in each
nation will grow dramatically.
Nivellated?
Leveled.
You seem fixated by commerce.
Because there is the origin of the expression and there are the only
possible beneficiaries of globalisation.
When I speak of Globalisation I mean simply the vastly increrasing
awareness of and contact with other human beings across the globe -
so that gradually we are becoming a global society.
A society you expect to solve the problems that were caused by right the
groups that are growing due to this tendency to globalisation ...
You should be aware of the inherent instability of the society you are
advocating.
If knowledge is useful, it will spread due to it's usefulness.
It will spread now much faster than in the past.
Due to better means of communication, but not due to globalisation.
But...this IS globalisation, this mixture of...everything.
Right this is my point: You are advocating the creation of a mixture of
everything. You are suggesting to increase communication between the
cultures by melting them to - yes: to what, actually?
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
18 Aug 2005 02:16:09 PM |
|
|
Joseph wrote:
You seem fixated by commerce.
Because there is the origin of the expression and there are the only
possible beneficiaries of globalisation.
Just because something is the origin of something doesn't imply a
permanent link. Our language is full of words that have sundered past
links. Also, if globalisation means increased harmony and sharing - of
culture - between nations; if it means less strife; if it means we get
to enjoy the best of all cutlures...then we all benefit. It's up to all
of us to strive to see that this happens - and not its opposite.
When I speak of Globalisation I mean simply the vastly increrasing
awareness of and contact with other human beings across the globe -
so that gradually we are becoming a global society.
You should be aware of the inherent instability of the society you are
advocating.
I'm sure that you, as a student of our history, know very well that our
past has been quite unstable. Stability, such as it is, was only
secured by domination. Now, across much of thr globe we have stability
by agreement. Rather better, I feel.
You are suggesting to increase communication between the
cultures by melting them to - yes: to what, actually?
Some melting must occur, has already occurred, Cultures that developed
in isolation must melt somewhat when they encounter other cultures.
Yes, I see a global cultures to come, an awareness of human capability,
of our natural freedom, of our unique potential, of our fraught past,
of the world and the universe which we inhabit. I see all this in the
context of a free, informed global society in which the individual is
allowed expression and in which we strive to build - with difficulty -
equality of opportunity. I see this as the basis of Humanisation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
19 Aug 2005 10:35:39 AM |
|
|
Joseph H wrote:
...
Just because something is the origin of something doesn't imply a
permanent link. Our language is full of words that have sundered past
links. Also, if globalisation means increased harmony and sharing - of
culture - between nations; if it means less strife; if it means we get
to enjoy the best of all cutlures...then we all benefit.
Of course "the best culture" has to be seen from the point of view of an
evolutionist: It's the fittest culture if it is about survival and about
the elimination of competing cultures.
...
I'm sure that you, as a student of our history, know very well that our
past has been quite unstable.
An interesting claim. Many structures survived for quite a long time
until the were overrun by an empire.
Stability, such as it is, was only secured by domination. Now, across
much of thr globe we have stability by agreement. Rather better, I
feel.
Where?
There are only some spots of stability.
...
Some melting must occur, has already occurred, Cultures that developed
in isolation must melt somewhat when they encounter other cultures.
Yes, I see a global cultures to come, an awareness of human capability,
of our natural freedom, of our unique potential, of our fraught past,
of the world and the universe which we inhabit. I see all this in the
context of a free, informed global society in which the individual is
allowed expression and in which we strive to build - with difficulty -
equality of opportunity. I see this as the basis of Humanisation.
So the basis for what you are suggesting is to destroy the cultural variety?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
19 Aug 2005 12:35:38 PM |
|
|
In message <de4u88$f43$01$1@news.t-online.com>, AE <hidden@nospam.com>
writes
So the basis for what you are suggesting is to destroy the cultural variety?
The honest answer to this is "Yes", although it will be criticised by
many. I come back to the question of Sharia law, which I would seek to
encourage Muslims to give up.
Fundamentally, Islamists who maintain that no changes are permissible
with the passing of time and the advances in knowledge are denying how
things are. Although most religions take this attitude to some extent
(for example Roman Catholics and birth control) they merely lose
adherents.
However, I tend to interpret "culture" more narrowly, to the arts,
literature and music, where as far as I am concerned the more variety
the better. The difference for me is between basics and options. The
basic structure of society determines how we live; what we do with our
spare time is optional (although it may be extremely important).
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
20 Aug 2005 08:17:57 AM |
|
|
In article <7E5eraAqhhBDFwIC@eddlewood.demon.co.uk>,
ralph <ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <de4u88$f43$01$1@news.t-online.com>, AE <hidden@nospam.com>
writes
So the basis for what you are suggesting is to destroy the cultural variety?
The honest answer to this is "Yes", although it will be criticised by
many. I come back to the question of Sharia law, which I would seek to
encourage Muslims to give up.
Fundamentally, Islamists who maintain that no changes are permissible
with the passing of time and the advances in knowledge are denying how
things are. Although most religions take this attitude to some extent
(for example Roman Catholics and birth control) they merely lose
adherents.
Then let them lose adherents. Like individuals and species, that which
adapts survives -- that which does not dies off.
However, I tend to interpret "culture" more narrowly, to the arts,
literature and music, where as far as I am concerned the more variety
the better. The difference for me is between basics and options. The
basic structure of society determines how we live; what we do with our
spare time is optional (although it may be extremely important).
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
20 Aug 2005 03:17:44 AM |
|
|
Ron wrote:
...
Then let them lose adherents. Like individuals and species, that which
adapts survives -- that which does not dies off.
...
That's what I expect to happen: One culture survives, all other will die
off.
The problem is, that what survives is not what is most desirable for the
individual: So far the most agressive cultures survived, because they
actively invaded the other ones (by means of colonialism) and that
actively destroyed their base (by means of proselytization with fire and
sword).
Globalisation is simply yet another wave that allows to invade cultures
by means of economy and to destroyes the base of other cultures by means
of consume.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
20 Aug 2005 05:26:08 AM |
|
|
In article <de6ov2$161$01$1@news.t-online.com>, AE <hidden@nospam.com>
wrote:
Ron wrote:
...
Then let them lose adherents. Like individuals and species, that which
adapts survives -- that which does not dies off.
...
That's what I expect to happen: One culture survives, all other will die
off.
I suspect that 500 years from now, or 2000 years from now that these
discussion while of some singifance will seem infantile to those who
live in that time.
The problem is, that what survives is not what is most desirable for the
individual: So far the most agressive cultures survived, because they
actively invaded the other ones (by means of colonialism) and that
actively destroyed their base (by means of proselytization with fire and
sword).
The evidence, as I suggested a few weeks ago is to the contrary.
Aggressive cultures die off. The Romans, for example, enjoyed a period
of time, but the their culture has died off. The Nazis enjoyed a quick
rise to power and global domination. All of the Ancient civilizations
have died off. The British enjoyed domination for some time, now they
are but an island with a figurehead in many nations. Those cultures that
are expansionist and colonial die off. The more aggressive the culture
it seems the more quickly it dies off. The influence of the Greeks will
slowly vanish as well as only a small portion of the world's population
actually study what they had to say.
Globalisation is simply yet another wave that allows to invade cultures
by means of economy and to destroyes the base of other cultures by means
of consume.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
20 Aug 2005 07:43:46 AM |
|
|
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
Ron wrote:
...
Then let them lose adherents. Like individuals and species, that which
adapts survives -- that which does not dies off.
...
That's what I expect to happen: One culture survives, all other will die
off.
I suspect that 500 years from now, or 2000 years from now that these
discussion while of some singifance will seem infantile to those who
live in that time.
Quite possible. On the other hand, if I were a Greek philosopher, I
wouldn't stop acting and thinking the way I'd consider appropriate, just
because 2000 years later in an industrialized world people would think
differently.
The problem is, that what survives is not what is most desirable for the
individual: So far the most agressive cultures survived, because they
actively invaded the other ones (by means of colonialism) and that
actively destroyed their base (by means of proselytization with fire and
sword).
The evidence, as I suggested a few weeks ago is to the contrary.
Aggressive cultures die off.
Cultures like the christian occident?
The Romans, for example, enjoyed a period of time, but the their
culture has died off.
From founding of Rome to the fall of the empire about 1000 years, right?
The Nazis enjoyed a quick rise to power and global domination.
They were linked to a single person and had an insane philosophy.
All of the Ancient civilizations
have died off. The British enjoyed domination for some time, now they
are but an island with a figurehead in many nations. Those cultures that
are expansionist and colonial die off. The more aggressive the culture
it seems the more quickly it dies off.
Actually you are talking about nations, not about cultures.
The influence of the Greeks will slowly vanish as well as only a
small portion of the world's population actually study what they had
to say.
Of course, this is about the small portion that studies anything at all ...
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
20 Aug 2005 08:19:33 AM |
|
|
In article <de78ht$bbb$03$1@news.t-online.com>, AE <hidden@nospam.com>
wrote:
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
Ron wrote:
...
Then let them lose adherents. Like individuals and species, that which
adapts survives -- that which does not dies off.
...
That's what I expect to happen: One culture survives, all other will die
off.
I suspect that 500 years from now, or 2000 years from now that these
discussion while of some singifance will seem infantile to those who
live in that time.
Quite possible. On the other hand, if I were a Greek philosopher, I
wouldn't stop acting and thinking the way I'd consider appropriate, just
because 2000 years later in an industrialized world people would think
differently.
The problem is, that what survives is not what is most desirable for the
individual: So far the most agressive cultures survived, because they
actively invaded the other ones (by means of colonialism) and that
actively destroyed their base (by means of proselytization with fire and
sword).
The evidence, as I suggested a few weeks ago is to the contrary.
Aggressive cultures die off.
Cultures like the christian occident?
The Romans, for example, enjoyed a period of time, but the their
culture has died off.
From founding of Rome to the fall of the empire about 1000 years, right?
The Nazis enjoyed a quick rise to power and global domination.
They were linked to a single person and had an insane philosophy.
All of the Ancient civilizations
have died off. The British enjoyed domination for some time, now they
are but an island with a figurehead in many nations. Those cultures that
are expansionist and colonial die off. The more aggressive the culture
it seems the more quickly it dies off.
Actually you are talking about nations, not about cultures.
Cultural and national identities do seem to have many things in common.
The influence of the Greeks will slowly vanish as well as only a
small portion of the world's population actually study what they had
to say.
Of course, this is about the small portion that studies anything at all ...
So then, what are you perpetuating or replicating?
The point overall still holds that aggressive culture die off. The least
aggressive culture/nation that I can think of happens to be the one you
had indicated that you liked the most -- the Swiss.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
20 Aug 2005 05:08:17 PM |
|
|
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
Ron wrote:
...
All of the Ancient civilizations
have died off. The British enjoyed domination for some time, now they
are but an island with a figurehead in many nations. Those cultures that
are expansionist and colonial die off. The more aggressive the culture
it seems the more quickly it dies off.
Actually you are talking about nations, not about cultures.
Cultural and national identities do seem to have many things in common.
Nevertheless one shouldn't mix them up.
The influence of the Greeks will slowly vanish as well as only a
small portion of the world's population actually study what they had
to say.
Of course, this is about the small portion that studies anything at all ...
So then, what are you perpetuating or replicating?
The point overall still holds that aggressive culture die off. The least
aggressive culture/nation that I can think of happens to be the one you
had indicated that you liked the most -- the Swiss.
True. And the US as one of the most agressive existing right now is
surely doomed. But that's only about nations. What about cultures?
So far the most agressive religions were the ones that are prevalent
right now - the religions of the book.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
20 Aug 2005 05:51:28 PM |
|
|
In article <de89kb$ebi$02$1@news.t-online.com>, AE <hidden@nospam.com>
wrote:
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
Ron wrote:
...
All of the Ancient civilizations
have died off. The British enjoyed domination for some time, now they
are but an island with a figurehead in many nations. Those cultures that
are expansionist and colonial die off. The more aggressive the culture
it seems the more quickly it dies off.
Actually you are talking about nations, not about cultures.
Cultural and national identities do seem to have many things in common.
Nevertheless one shouldn't mix them up.
The influence of the Greeks will slowly vanish as well as only a
small portion of the world's population actually study what they had
to say.
Of course, this is about the small portion that studies anything at all ...
So then, what are you perpetuating or replicating?
The point overall still holds that aggressive culture die off. The least
aggressive culture/nation that I can think of happens to be the one you
had indicated that you liked the most -- the Swiss.
True. And the US as one of the most agressive existing right now is
surely doomed. But that's only about nations. What about cultures?
So far the most agressive religions were the ones that are prevalent
right now - the religions of the book.
And they are losing adherents. The reality seems to be that a good
portion of the human population identify as such, but when push comes to
shove the average religious person does as the atheist does.
The issue remains. The more aggressive a nation, a culture, a religion
that, over time, it harms itself and dies off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
21 Aug 2005 02:37:54 AM |
|
|
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
...
So far the most agressive religions were the ones that are prevalent
right now - the religions of the book.
And they are losing adherents. The reality seems to be that a good
portion of the human population identify as such, but when push comes to
shove the average religious person does as the atheist does.
The issue remains. The more aggressive a nation, a culture, a religion
that, over time, it harms itself and dies off.
You are claiming, the life expectancy of a nation or culture would be
effected negatively by agression. Let's use the Roman Empire with it's
about 1000 years and the Christian culture that imho effectively started
in 3rd century, that definitely was quite strong till 17th century and
that still persists, as two examples for agressive nations and cultures.
Now please provide examples for the long-livety of peaceful nations and
religions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
21 Aug 2005 08:39:57 AM |
|
|
In article <de9b0e$fkm$04$1@news.t-online.com>, AE <hidden@nospam.com>
wrote:
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
...
So far the most agressive religions were the ones that are prevalent
right now - the religions of the book.
And they are losing adherents. The reality seems to be that a good
portion of the human population identify as such, but when push comes to
shove the average religious person does as the atheist does.
The issue remains. The more aggressive a nation, a culture, a religion
that, over time, it harms itself and dies off.
You are claiming, the life expectancy of a nation or culture would be
effected negatively by agression. Let's use the Roman Empire with it's
about 1000 years and the Christian culture that imho effectively started
in 3rd century, that definitely was quite strong till 17th century and
that still persists, as two examples for agressive nations and cultures.
Now please provide examples for the long-livety of peaceful nations and
religions.
I've never made this argument, so to offer examples seems unusual.
I have argued for adaptability, not survival -- you might consider me an
evolutionist. The Western style may die off, it may adapt, or something
else will replace it, but something will emerge over time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Human Destiny |
21 Aug 2005 11:28:17 AM |
|
|
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
...
So far the most agressive religions were the ones that are prevalent
right now - the religions of the book.
And they are losing adherents. The reality seems to be that a good
portion of the human population identify as such, but when push comes to
shove the average religious person does as the atheist does.
The issue remains. The more aggressive a nation, a culture, a religion
that, over time, it harms itself and dies off.
You are claiming, the life expectancy of a nation or culture would be
effected negatively by agression. Let's use the Roman Empire with it's
about 1000 years and the Christian culture that imho effectively started
in 3rd century, that definitely was quite strong till 17th century and
that still persists, as two examples for agressive nations and cultures.
Now please provide examples for the long-livety of peaceful nations and
religions.
I've never made this argument, so to offer examples seems unusual.
I have argued for adaptability, not survival -- you might consider me an
evolutionist.
Perfect! Now show me the evolutionary advantage of peaceful nations or
cultures. And please give examples to proof your concept :->
The Western style may die off, it may adapt, or something
else will replace it, but something will emerge over time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
