Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:16 pm
Please use this thread for discussing Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash.
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
Hail,What’s repurposing?
seespotrun2008,I don't believe that is true.
That could be. Maybe I need things more clearly spelled out. He is often asking us to think of how we would feel when it comes to the relationships between other species in nature. I take issue with that. I think that because our relationships and reactions are very unique, it is a stretch to ask us to think of our own reactions in reference to another species. Not that we are superior in any way, or that there is some hierarchy where we are on top, but we are very different.Thanks for the perspective, and I don't believe that the viewpoint is literally accurate. To say that bee's feel or that bee's can believe, on a level equal to human feelings and beliefs, is over the top. The elementary building blocks of feelings and beliefs may be what was on the mind of the author - the baby steps.
I don’t necessarily think that political structures where manipulation is used for gain is unique to humans. Dawkins talks about manipulation between creatures in The Extended Phenotype. And animals definitely have political issues going on. Living with three cats has taught me that. I think that each species has complexities and limitations that are unique to its own, however. I think that when I read about some of these things that he is talking about (like the bee and rejection) I am going to automatically feel those things because that is how I react as a human. Asking me to think of a bee feeling that same thing (which Bloom clearly does) is asking me to think something that is not necessarily accurate, like you said. I think I like Dawkins because he is very much a scientist and he takes each species as its own unique entity while looking at similarities. I also feel that Dawkins is obviously trying to be objective. I expect more of that when reading about science. I don’t think that is what Bloom is doing. That's fine. It is just an observation on my part.A political structure, where the species members falsify communications for gain, at the expense of their rivals (or targets), may be purely human, as your friend says, I can believe that, but that brings into my view a question. Is politics (the lying part) a species killer, a destructive mutation, or is there some other species sustaining purpose?
I don’t necessarily think that political structures where manipulation is used for gain is unique to humans.
I do not distinguish between politics and economy much; they are one and the same thing, along the lines of deceit and violence being one and the same thing, joined at the hip as told by Solzhenitsyn in his Nobel Lecture. Political/Economy so long as two human beings are involved into a group, connected by some link, where power is transferred between them is the connection between two human beings - a power struggle.I think that it is pretty hard to say that any form of economic or political structure is ordained by nature. As a friend of mine says, these structures are purely human.
Robert,Language and global civilization definitely indicate a human superiority to all other animals, indicated in intelligence tests where even dolphins and whales rank as fairly stupid by human standards.
What is the quality of life, the exact thing, which discriminates machine type animals from non-machine type animals? Where is that dividing point? I’m curious. Once that thing is identified, what is its purpose?There is a tendency (from Descartes and the Bible) to assume that animals are machines, but when we look scientifically at animal behaviour we find that there are very many similarities with human attitudes, showing strong instinctive continuity between all life.
I feel there is a contradiction within SeeSpotRun’s comments that humans are unique but not superior.
But they are not really the same. They are at times intimately connected but I think that you can have politics without economics but not economics without politics. In fact I don’t think that you can really have any human endeavor without politics (unfortunately ). Like you said, a power struggle.I do not distinguish between politics and economy much
Good question. I am not really sure. Why are some species very territorial? We are very territorial. How does that benefit various species?I’m specifically concerned about behavior whereby one individual member of the species employs deceit (or violence) to gain at the expense of other individual members of the species since to me that would be a species killing adaptation – taken to its logical conclusion. What would be the point of such an adaptation from a species perspective?
seespotrun2008,But they are not really the same.
We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.
For me to bridge the gap between the two separate things (Solzhenitsyn’s viewpoint and my viewpoint expressed with different written words) I’d need cooperation from you, not contention.I do not distinguish between politics and economy much
To my way of measuring reality the above is not true. It does not measure up. How can politics be defined so that politics can afford to proceed without economy – and visa versa?They are at times intimately connected but I think that you can have politics without economics but not economics without politics.
Could that sentence mean the same thing (do you mean the same thing) if it were written as such:Not that it is ever possible to completely let go of assumptions, but it should be the goal. But maybe that is my own bias.
My question (good question) tends to produce data that measures criminal brains and compares criminal brains to non-criminal brains, such as the work done by Fromm in his book titled: The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.Good question. I am not really sure. Why are some species very territorial? We are very territorial. How does that benefit various species?
I like this essay. Very poetic.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/ ... cture.html
So let me repeat in my own words what you said here, so that I am making sure that I do not misunderstand. You are defining “politics” as the psychology coming from inside the person and economy is a human beings relation to physical things outside of him or herself. Which you could technically say is a person's psychology to an outside stimulous. Is that correct?From my view the phenomenon that is labeled as “politics” is a phenomenon that exists in the psychological realm of human reality – rocks and trees are not involved in politics; while economy is a phenomenon that involves physical reality – as perceived by human beings with their psychological perspectives – again rocks and trees are not involved in economy, as such.
I think that it does mean the same thing. I would agree with your quote here:Quote:
Not that it is ever possible to completely let go of assumptions, but it should be the goal. But maybe that is my own bias.
Could that sentence mean the same thing (do you mean the same thing) if it were written as such:
Not that it is ever possible to completely let go of bias, but it should be the goal. But maybe that is my own assumption.
An assumption is a decision, whether conscious or unconscious, to see the world a certain way. Here is the definition of assumption according to dictionary.comAn assumption, it seems to me, could be someone, anyone, in time and space where a decision must be made, even if the decision is to avoid making a decision, then time moves on and certainly the space occupied by the person doing the assuming is measurably different (displacement).
1.
to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit: to assume that everyone wants peace.
a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
They are both an unexamined way of seeing the world. Scholarship is about examining those decisions; it is about bringing assumption or bias to the conscious mind and unraveling them.What connects the two?
Probably booktalk.What connects us two?
Interesting. I have not read this book so I do not know what Fromm means by criminal vs. non-criminal. What makes someone a criminal? Are criminals only the people whose behavior is considered immoral by the rest of society? Which society? And people do not always consider violence criminal. Soldiers are not seen as criminals. Police who shoot someone in the line of duty are often not considered criminal. In many parts of the world and sometimes in our own culture violence against women is not seen as criminal.My question (good question) tends to produce data that measures criminal brains and compares criminal brains to non-criminal brains, such as the work done by Fromm in his book titled: The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.
To suggest that my question is relative to life forms that are “very territorial” is to miss the point (it seems to me). I can go on and on with that explanation (from my viewpoint) and I’ll borrow from Solzhenitsyn in doing so, if that path is aggreable.