Any assertion of the existence of any of these preternatural things humans have irrationally feared for millennia is baseless. None has been evidenced reliably. All are based on the personal experiences, typically of unbalanced individuals seeking attention, experiences no one has ever been able to demonstrate or duplicate under any controlled conditions. Even in this, the information age, when everyone has a smart phone equipped with a video camera, no paranormal activity has ever been recorded, and no "soul" has ever been detected. It might be time to start thinking about where to bury all of this nonsense. — whollyrolling

Ok. These statements may in themselves be somewhat of an assertion, but no problem. So are you maybe arguing for a hard materialism? Would you say there a spirit component (for lack of a better term) of humans, analogous with (though perhaps not equivalent to) the mental or emotional aspects? If it helps to clarify the OP a little, personally I am more interested in what’s “here” within us humans rather than what may or may not be “out there” somewhere.

With eternalism, the past is real in some sense. I wonder if the ghosts that are reported across many different cultures are somehow accessing the past sort of like a video recording. Eternalists hold that Socrates still exists, maybe in some sense what could be called his spirit does. — Devans99

:up: Interesting visual analogy. Thank you. (BTW, I used to be an Eternalist. But it didn’t last too long. :snicker: )

If your question includes the notion, "Are there things involved in REALITY that humans either do not know exist or are not capable of knowing"...then of course the "possibility" of those things existing does occur. — Frank Apisa

:up: I didn’t happen to word it so, but that is definitely a good question. (And this might be one of those topics where there are more questions than answers. Thus putting the importance on the questions themselves.)

I do question the use of the word "supernatural" in this type of question, though. — Frank Apisa

Yes, the word “supernatural” is a loaded term. Which I tried to avoid in the OP, but was bound to come up eventually. As you suggest, how supernatural is defined makes an enormous difference in any discussion of it.

Supernatural usually is defined as, "something attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

If it is "beyond scientific understanding"...then by definition it is beyond human understanding.

Surely there ARE things beyond human understanding. — Frank Apisa

Yes. I would tend to agree with these statements. I would add that perhaps human understanding is something akin to vision. That some kind of vision, no matter how fuzzy or blurry, is better than none.
But, conversely... a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Like the well-known example of the person who thinks they see a snake, but it is only a rope.

However, the second understanding of "supernatural"..."something beyond the laws of nature" is stickier.
If a thing "exists"...it exists. It IS a part of nature whether humans are capable of understanding it or not.

If "ghosts" or "spirit entities" exist...they ARE part of nature.

Any of the things normally held to be "supernatural"...shouldn't be considered that at all.

IF they exist...they are a part of nature...not other than natural at all. — Frank Apisa

I agree with that. Thanks for your reply. What do you think the spirit (or spiritual nature) within an individual is? Does such possibly exist?

It was the only justification for a spirit world I could think of. I was approaching the problem from if you could justify the existence of one spirit (IE God) then maybe other spirits are possible too. — Devans99

Ok, that sounds fair enough! Thanks. I see the logic of that line of thinking. (My previous response about “the God question” was with the intent to not open up a can of worms, or put the cart before the horse. But YMMV.) :smile:

First of all, this is a question and a question's purpose is an answer. He/She didn't write a book with mistakes to be pointed down. Criticism is welcomed when it comes with an answer.
I see his question has a mistake. But that doesn't make you a reason to deny it's answer. Hope you understand. — Tarun

:up: Thank you. You get the gist and intent of the question.

Now, for that question, I could say spirit is existent in everyone. I could say so firmly because all of us are bound by spirits. This is not much than a name. In science, we call it energy. In spirituality we call it a spirit. — Tarun

Ok, thanks for your reply. FWIW, I would not disagree with any of it. I also am interested in the possible energy/spirit relationship. Could you expand on what you mean by “all of us are bound by spirits”?

Spacetime was apparently created in the Big Bang. What created it? Something not of spacetime. Could that something be non-material? — Devans99

Interesting... but (with all due respect) we are intentionally and with IMHO good reason NOT talking about “what created it?”. In the OP, I tried to nip that whole God question in the bud. The first rule of Fight Club is... :wink:

Such picky Professors in this university! :blush:

In order to ask or answer whether or not something exists, one must first know what that something is. How do you expect anyone to answer such a poorly framed question? — DingoJones

That’s what I was earnestly attempting to do, in several different ways. How would you frame it?

I think you got the questions backwards. First ask, what is it, and then you can assess whether ot exists. — NKBJ

I think the questions are valid (if not perfect) as written. It was not necessarily written or intended as a syllogism. But flip around if that helps!

My personal take:
Supernatural spirits: by definition cannot exist. — NKBJ

Interesting. Care to expand upon that statement?

Agreeing with several others, I also don’t think that espousing pet theories is spamming, necessarily. Overly repetitive or off-topic perhaps, but not spam as commonly thought of. We all have pet theories. But if we keep them from barking too loudly and clean up after them when out for a walk, then everything is in relative order.

(I posted the following in the Shoutbox, but since it is located in the suburbs of Siberia, I’ll repeat it for whatever it’s worth... ) Sometimes I wonder if it would help to have each discussion split into two parallel columns: the main discussion, and then the side commentary, jokes, and personal asides. In other words, the discussion on one side, and the doodles in the margins on the other. Off-topic comments (which are often interesting to some, perhaps distracting to others) would be sidelined rather than stumbled over or deleted. Probably not feasible with the forum software, just a marginal idea.

I find there are enough decent people here to outweigh the unpleasant ones, personally. — NKBJ

This gives us all some hope and inspiration. Especially since trolls are about a half ton each in weight.

... and surf the cosmic waves in the ocean of time... until one reaches the shores of eternity. Where of course everyone is happy and tan. And the drinks don’t give you a hangover. :yum:

This is a translation of chapter 19 from the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu.
What I find particularly interesting is the part about wisdom and knowledge, and how Lao Tzu suggests people would be better off without these things. Intuitively I can understand what is meant by this statement, however I've found it difficult to put this to words.

Does knowledge lead to arrogance and a false sense of understanding?
Does knowledge cause us to worry about things which have no bearing on our lives?
Does knowledge seek to replace intuition as a method of understanding? — Tzeentch

Yes, this is a most interesting and profound quote. It makes me think of another quote, “one has power until one tries to wield it”. Which would suggest letting the power and wisdom work and speak for themselves, in a way. The action of non-action; less is more. Oversharpen the blade, and it will soon be dull. Jade is praised as being precious, but its strength comes from being stone. The wise wear their jewels under rough and common clothing. (as other lines from the TTC go).

One would think that the writings of the Stoics, both East and West, are still extremely relevant. Although times have changed so much since then with so many diverse influences, that one can only practice some kind of eclectic neo-stoicism. Anyway, the heart of the teachings seem to be equanimity, balance, peace, and compassion. To the raging storms of perceptions, desires, and feelings Stoicism (as I imagine it) says “as immense as this appears, it too will pass. Take and appreciate it for what it is, no more and no less.” To the distant things and people that seem removed from one’s own existence, Stoicism says “you are that, for there is nothing that is completely separate.”

“Blessings to everything and everyone, all the time”. This motto or mantra expresses a deep equanimity. It is a doorway to peace. Feelings are natural and normal, but like almost anything else, can sometimes go astray. Feeling follows thinking, albeit slowly sometimes. However, this is not mere self-brain washing, like thinking “everything is great!”. This approach would help equally on the day one wins the lottery, or the moment one learns they have inoperable cancer. Like the line from the movie V For Vendetta... “you are now beyond fear. You are now completely free”.

(A clarification of the meaning of the word “blessing” in this context... it is a high vibrational energy, or loving wisdom and graceful compassion. It is definitely NOT confined to the usual personal meaning of blessing, ie approval, favor, good fortune, or agreement.)

Sorry, yes, i meant that in reference to what other people believe, the way they justify their behaviour. — DingoJones

Good, thanks for the clarification!

Yep. The extremists get the headlines, naturally. There is some psychological effect happening, like when a child starts fires to get attention from parents. We are a world of lost, sad, angry children... armed to the teeth.
— 0 thru 9

Im not sure its fringe, if that's what you mean by extremist. The movement and idealogy inevitably become “extreme”, for example the idea that words are violence — DingoJones

Ok. Sorry if it was vague what I was responding to. This:

Antifa is also a good example. Dressing in masks, enforcng through violence their own ideology.
The humanities have been taken over by the same types of people, training kids to hate under the guise of social justice. — DingoJones

I took this to be an example of extreme beliefs and actions. The “cutting edge” as it were, for better or worse. I would say that words do NOT literally equal violence. However, words can be (or seem or appear) violent or be thought of as inciting violence.

Now its perfectly justifiable to physically harm people who say things you do not like. You are just meeting violence with violence after all. Worse, you are immoral if you DONT. — DingoJones

I am not sure how you mean these statements. It is unclear whether you are agreeing with them, or referring to others that believe in them? Clarification would be welcome.

... because there's zero evidence of the behavior/belief connection. — Terrapin Station

Would you care to provide ANY evidence that beliefs have NO effect on behavior? Are the mind and body completely separate and independent of each other? Is that what you are saying? Please correct me if I’m wrong. But if that is the message, it is taking things to a whole other level... and going contrary to “conventional wisdom”, which would hold that the mind to a large degree controls or directs the body, autonomic body processes aside.

For example, pressuring employers so that folks wind up canned because of something they said, photographs they posted, etc. — Terrapin Station

Ok, thank for the reply and example, though it still a bit generalized. In your example, one could imagine the words/photo being anywhere between very mildly “politically incorrect” to virulent and violent. Though i get the gist...

But anyway, one wearies of all types of “warriors” eventually. When does protective defense become an obnoxious offense? How far is too far? It is impossible to even discuss with the verbal bombs exploding Left and Right.

@DingoJones
Yep. The extremists get the headlines, naturally. There is some psychological effect happening, like when a child starts fires to get attention from parents. We are a world of lost, sad, angry children... armed to the teeth.

It seems that every intoxicating substance has its general nature and effects, be it alcohol, psychedelics, stimulants, etc. On the other hand, the pandora’s box that any such substance opens in a given individual might depend on the person more than the poison. The usual idea is that alcohol is a “magnifer”. A happy person will be overly friendly, an angry person will go looking for a fight, a sad person cries into their beer, and so forth.

There is a saying that goes something like “you can’t get tomato juice by squeezing an orange”. In other words, what is lurking in the sub/unconscious is often waiting for a chance to come out. What I find interesting (and completely understandable) is how we spend so much time and energy building up our selves and identities, and then how desperately we wish to escape these very elaborate constructions. The world is too much with us, and heavy is the head that wears the crown. This seems to be our current state of mind, by and large...

What's wrong with it is that SJWs typically want to control what other people can choose to do. — Terrapin Station

Hmmm... even if one were sympathetic to a statement like that, it is a bit too large to chew all at once. Care to perhaps elaborate or break it down (thus preventing mental indigestion)?

I thought I had truly asked about absolutely emphatic abstractions in this thread. But maybe I didn't post it. — Terrapin Station

Absolutely! (As Rocky Balboa might put it).

Poets, politicians and mathematicians of course can do whatever they please with no qualms. — unenlightened

They have words to thank for their position. Words that scream for your submission. No one’s jamming their transmission.

Plus we shouldn't write two paragraphs just to explain that the map isn't the territory. Just say the map isn't the territory and go about your business. — frank

I like to keep the territory in my car’s glove box, being much more accurate than a drawing. But you think a map is difficult to re-fold... oy! :snicker:

This could be yet another example of the benefits and usefulness of (or at least a familiarity with) the E-Prime theory of using substitutes for the verb “to be”. Even though the OP pointed out unnecessary adjectives, they could perhaps be thought of as extensions of the verb. Or maybe the pile of cherries on top, so to speak. The benefit of E-Prime according to its creator is avoiding a dogmatic, god-like point of view. So someone inclined to define things once and for all (presumably in order to move on to bigger things) might say “the actual sky is absolutely blue” or something similar. Kind of like killing an imaginary fly with real dynamite. The writer who would call a spade a spade should be compelled to use one, as Oscar Wilde humorously put it.

This is where art is far more nimble, being less literal. The more literal the language tends to be, the more specific it becomes. The more specific it becomes, the more individual and relative it tends to be. Which is probably NOT the intent of the one making an “absolute” and sweeping statement. (Science usually has no such problem with small bits of data).

One can only imagine the comic folly that ensues when our imagined bold speaker makes “absolute, actual, and true” assertions about the “real” Absolute realm (aka God or the Ideal). Hmmm... the Tower of Babel seemed like a good idea on paper... Maybe if we try again, only taller this time. :chin: But seriously, for what it is worth, I think/believe that an Absolute realm or Being exists. Though it can be approached, I would think it is somewhat analogous to the sub-atomic sphere. Proceed carefully, at your own risk. Fools rush in, and angels roll their eyes and sigh at us fearless puppies.

I don't agree the Dark Triad describes a small group of people. It describes a lot of successful people in a sick society. Honestly, it has to be considered whether Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy aren't seen in many successful people. How else did they get in high places? By being kind? Right. If you don't think self-interest, manipulation of others, and having to set aside emotions to way too large of an extent isn't required for success in the transactional values of the market society, it would be naive; when the system is a reinforced zero-sums game, people are going to be crooked and unempathetic. Also, be careful of just world fallacy...the human system doesn't positively or negatively reinforce anything but behaviorism, which is at best our extrinsically motivated animal nature (i.e., no inner world, mind or consciousness). How interesting it would be if people were rewarded for being coherent inside and without internal conflict (which comes as much from environmental and social conditions as anything); and those who're ugly and poorly communicated inside would be put in the nick. What a different humans system that would be. — Anthony

Thanks for your post. Perhaps I would not necessarily paint with such a broad brush, for that might risk over-generalization about anyone who is successful. But that quibble aside, I would tend to agree. Skepticism about our cultural modus operandi is a useful tool. One could ask whether our civilization as a whole exhibits the Dark Triad and imbibes the Three Poisons on a daily basis. It goes beyond competition. The goal of our culture seems to be utter and complete domination of all of nature as well as each other. And we are so immune to it that calling attention to it seems pointless. If humans act against the laws of nature, those laws will come down hard on us. And by laws of nature, I mean that no single species can claim the entire earth without damaging it beyond repair. But we as a whole are attempting just that. Our civilization remembers Aesop’s story of the Golden Goose, but can’t imagine that it applies to us on a large scale. No wonder individuals exhibit the Dark Triad. It is our hidden religion, and the god of that dark cult is unlimited Power. Even though unlimited power (as is usually imagined) is unobtainable. It is a hunger that cannot be satisfied.

If you take this one environmental killer, mechanicalized time, and ask why it kills...it is revealing. Being compelled to live in perpetual falsity might have something to do with why some people can't handle such constrained life. I.e., time is not mechanical, it is basically feedback between complex systems. Everything that transpires in human institutions does so according to a device which, in itself, obeys no external feedback (it tics away like a militant and merciless slaver), and is as such, violating homeostasis of an organism. — Anthony

Interesting concept about mechanized time. Might be worthy of a thread to explore it. Given the seeming human tendency to view machines as the ultimate ideal (power being our culture’s true god, as mentioned above), time was bound to be quantified and mechanized. Humans are very flexible with regards to lifestyle. So flexible in fact that one may imagine that humans can live absolutely any manner they choose without consequences. But a branch bent too far will snap.

To say that people require more freedom than the automated world allows would be a cogent statement. It is of interest the way some are aligned with the Spirit of Conquest which is seen in so many subsystems of society. Others, who require freedom rebel against being conquered. Also, I've learned that disorder doesn't derive from lack of order, it usually comes from too much order. It is of interest, actually, the masses of people have come to equate survival with a quality and quantity of order that clearly has little to do with survival. — Anthony

Yes. The most disturbing disorder (to humans) is not found in the wilderness, as harsh and unforgiving as it can seem. It is found of course in unbalanced societies. And this goes even beyond the equitable distribution of wealth, as important as that may be. Until our relationship with the Earth itself is (for lack of a better word) balanced, then our culture and all its laws and interpersonal relationships will continue to be thus imbalanced. And the news will be shocking and tragic, yet somehow not unexpected or surprising.

Alright, if that (IMHO) is the diagnosis of the disease, what is the prescription in hope of a cure? Well Buddha being Buddha, he would not merely list the poisons of greed, hatred, and ignorance without telling us the antidote. To perhaps oversimplify... Greed is dissolved by generosity. Hatred by compassion. And ignorance disappears in the face of wisdom. But one must keep in mind the factors of time and scale. In other words, a serious disease takes time to heal even with the correct medicine and procedure. Without persistence, the antidotes will not be as effective as possible.

The not-so-humble narrator of the movie Amadeus, Salieri, is a character who seems like he could be a poster child for the Dark Triad. Scheming, vain, and violent (at least in his younger days as he recounts the tragic tale), he is willing to sacrifice all he believes in along with the life of Mozart. When he places his formerly revered crucifix into the fire, his mind clearly has descended into hell... one logical step after another, right into insanity. It is like he had studied Machiavelliani's original manuscripts, and prefigures the diabolical dealings of Faust in a way.

But luckily for us, the viewer and fellow grasping sinner both, there is a last minute repentance. The sacrifice of his own ego and blood, and his fascinating confession, opens the way to a hard-won redemption. And, if we dare accept it, a redemption for all of us humble "mediocrities everywhere".

My thinking exactly. As usual, the ancients have an understanding of psychology, whereas the moderns attempt an overview that excludes themselves and makes psychopathology 'other'. — unenlightened

Ha! I didn't think of it that way, but that makes sense. A bit overly objective, perhaps. Let him without neurosis cast the first Prozac! :sweat:

The "Dark Triad" focuses on the pathology of a relatively small group of people. The "Three Poisons" focus on characteristics of all of us. For that reason, it seems to me the poisons provide a better basis for understanding. — T Clark

Good point, I would say. Perhaps the Dark Triad might represent the extreme danger zone of the Three Poisons. I tend to think of the Buddhist concept often in trying to gauge and evaluate my actions. Both things I've done, and those under consideration. The teaching provides a helpful metric concerning choices, imho.

Horrible acts may be carried out by normal people. Hate and powerlessness combine into a dangerous cocktail and will do more to compel a person to such acts than a mental illness will. — Tzeentch

I would tend to agree with that, in my observations as a non-professional. There seem to be many instances of people apparently free of mental illness doing acts of extreme violence and crime. Each person could be thought to have a type of nuclear power within them. Whether it provides energy or destruction is up to each individual, it would seem.

do either of these models explain why people would have these traits?

it seems to address a problem like the shootings, one might have to address the cause; as to why the person did them. — wax

The Wikipedia link for Dark Triad above goes into some scientific research into the topic, including nature vs nurture and others. I tend to think of such things as analogous to a virus, mold, or bacteria. The spores (so to speak) are seemingly everywhere. One can perhaps strengthen their psychological or spiritual immune system to not give the destructive elements any fuel. I would wager that few people could have a constant input of unbalanced, stressful, violent stimuli and remain unaffected. At least I imagine it would be more difficult to maintain an equilibrium. How the individual interprets the situation and identifies themself appears to be a critical factor.

Not Alzheimers. But I'm definitely demented. As for fish oil, I eat fish alive, raw and wiggly just like Gollum. I got a taste for it when I was waiting to be rescued from the Titanic.

Sorry, can't remember that far back. Also can't remember what this thread is about. I recall it being rather interesting...

Thanks sonny! But you're gonna have to speak up. Can't hear you cuz of the TV... ( sorry, bad grampa joke)

@Wallows
Gosh, but the thread police are strict 'round these parts. Good thing you weren't caught with a dangling participle. Just remember that you have the right to remain silent until you speak to your lawyer. :zip:

On the other hand, a male becomes more sanguine and more or less risk-averse due to lower testosterone levels as one age's. Food and comfort become the priorities to be attained and maintained.

Out of the chaos of age and development some equilibrium has been found by the time a person approaches their later years. — Wallows

One could think of the figure of Santa Claus (apart from the obvious Christmas connotations) to be a kind of ideal older man. Generous, jolly, wise, and relatively healthy... if perhaps a tad chunky. As opposed to the archetypes of Ebineezer Scrooge, Mr. Potter (from “It’s a Wonderful Life”), and Montgomery Burns (from The Simpsons). These cautionary (and occasionally darkly comic) characters represent the bitter and greedy shell of a person that one probably would rather avoid dealing with or turning into.

People are like cheeses; the good ones get better with age, but the bad ones get worse.

In times of stability, the wisdom of the old is a valuable resource, but in times of rapid change, the wisdom of the old is more so out of date and thus foolishness.

In times of chaos, the only wisdom is neither old nor young and is not founded on knowledge at all, but on applied ignorance. — unenlightened

:up: Yes. And I would say that whatever amount of wisdom a person has managed to cultivate, has been hard won, has been acquired by swimming against the stream, so to speak. Sometimes, it seems that wisdom has been driven underground, scattered to the winds. I would dearly like to believe that our culture (as a whole, if one can imagine it to be a singular entity) is even trying to follow the “way of wisdom”. However, it seems “the path of power” is the broad freeway that our culture is cruising on. For example, the message of Christ being co-opted (perverted is probably a more accurate term) to be the sanctified and divine right of Eminent Domain, which now encompasses the entire world... and beyond.

Fictional characters can perhaps help one visualize the scenario. I imagine Obi-Won Kenobi sneaking through the Death Star, having less of a chance than David did against Goliath in his attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the machine. Frodo and Sam going into hellish Mordor, climbing Mount Doom to destroy the ring of power. Or as Jesus said, “I am sending you like lambs into a pack of wolves. So be as wise as snakes and as innocent as doves.”

What I mean is that it isn't just the elderly that are given minimal respect. Respect is conditional on having ample resources, because on one level, cash is what we respect. Nobody is going around disrespecting Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates--all three more or less elderly.

"On one level" because on other levels people use different standards. For instance, we may respect people on the basis of education, verbal facility, good looks (even in old age), and so on.

We all want respect, one way or another. — Bitter Crank

Yep, agreed. This issue goes to the heart of our culture. (And exposes its weaknesses, imho).

What is that line from the movie Pretty Woman? “They aren’t nice to people... they’re nice to credit cards”. If someone has amassed a fortune, they are almost guaranteed a best seller if they write a book. As though every word from a millionaire is pure golden wisdom that will sink into the reader’s brain and guide them on the path to success. The prosperity Gospel, either religious and secular.

However, I can see why people want the top of the mountain, the brass ring. Middle class and the Middle way may appear decimated and desolate. A balanced “give-and-take” approach (to respect, support, work, etc.) may appear outdated. The extremes are now (supposedly or at least seemingly) where the action is. It is the gambling, risk-everything mindset that is so prevalent that it is almost invisible. We are in the decade of desperate measures.

But this, I would propose, might simply be the cumulative effect of advertising (ie propaganda), and have about as much substance as a glittering Las Vegas sign.

@Baden @Maw
+1
Thank you both for your thoughtful responses. In this world wired together tighter than a drum, when the Middle East sneezes, the rest of us catch cold. Anti-Semitism is, like other forms of racism and intolerance, a blight upon humanity. We must strive to reduce it, if not completely eliminate it. But like the fable of the boy who cried wolf, false accusations of such for narrow political purposes undermine the real problem and cloud the issue.

The Jewish people have had an undeniably difficult history. May those in Israel live peacefully and happily. Any criticism (from myself and others of like mind) of the current government is with the intent to help ensure and increase that peace and happiness. For all, without exception.

It is becoming increasingly rare to see a sincere apology, not prompted by a lawyer or somebody. So good for you. (I was supposing that the thread was some kind of extreme bro-humor) But I will let the female members have their say about it. (And decide any penance after hearing your confession :halo: )

Is Bernie Sanders the only prominent democrat to come to the defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar? Correct me if there are others that showed some backbone and logic in this matter. Critique of the policies of Israel is absolutely NOT anti-Semitism in itself. The Democrats look like fraidy-cats on this one. But then politics and logic go together like grease and water. Guess which is the grease? :wink:

About the topic... I am far from an expert and it isn't a black and white clear case. However, the basic unfairness is becoming clearer. A Palestinian state won't make Israel smaller. It will make Israel greater.

First, there is some prospect of managing science and technology, we're already doing that. The question I'm raising is, can we successfully manage unlimited science and technology? If not, then it seems reasonable to at least question whether a development such as, say, unlimited free clean energy would on balance be helpful to human flourishing.

Next, you keep saying "the reality science describes" without referencing the imperfect reality of the human condition. I wouldn't harp on this except that it seems to me to be not a failure of your personal perspective so much as a logic flaw which almost defines modern civilization. Yes, if human beings were all rational as you define it then we could handle far more power, that's true. The problem is, we're not that rational, never have been, and there's no realistic prospect of us all joining the science religion and becoming Mr. Spock logic machines. — Jake

:up: Interesting. Thanks for sharing that, as well as your other posts. Would be inclined to agree. I think it was perhaps Oscar Wilde who said “I wonder who it was defined man as a rational animal. It was the most premature definition ever given. Man is many things, but he is not rational.” :wink:

In so many ways this is true. It's true because we are, after all, only very bright primates. We have drives which push our behavior in ways that our higher thought capacities can see are ill advised, but the drives remain in place -- they are deeply woven into our beings. Our drives were tolerable when there were fewer of us -- maybe 7 billion fewer. When we were a few hunter gatherers we could not get into too much trouble.

Then we settled down; we developed agriculture, built cities, organized governments, harnessed the energies of slaves and beasts to produce large surpluses of wealth (which accumulated in few hands), and began our more recent history. Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States by James C. Scott takes the view that a human urge to control led to the early states, and their exploitation of the people under their control. Scott has a deep libertarian streak, I suspect. I haven't finished the book, but I think he is going to name the State the Serpent in the Garden of Eden.

I'm not at all convinced, but there is certainly unhappy business at the very beginning of our more recent (last 10,000 years) history. — Bitter Crank

:up: Interesting, thanks. Have the book by James Scott you mentioned on hold at the library. Hadn’t heard of it before.

Various thoughts on the subject...

The powerful leaders of the world and the corporations that support them, are but the current guard of a very long (and dubious) tradition of turning the living earth into commodities. And turning the earth into human fodder to produce as many people as possible. Food and commodities are of course necessities for survival. But on the “top levels” survival means continuing to be in absolute power, not mere subsistence. Long ago when there were few humans and lots of untouched land, this conquistador mentality may possibly have had more short term benefits than drawbacks. But now the materialistic conquest of the earth is hitting the wall. The increasing difficulty of finding petroleum, climate change, and overcrowding are just the top of a long list of seemingly intractable problems.

We have to think differently. We must act differently. We can live differently. Soon there will be no other choice, so why not start now? But where to start?

This is not an anti-technology sermon, nor a call to go back to the nomadic hunter-gatherer life. I wouldn’t begin to know how or why to do that. But life is cyclical, and the tallest tree is rooted deep in the rocks and soil. Technology is of course astounding. It is the accumulation of knowledge and skills that started even before there were humans. A bird building a nest has art and skill. (No? Try building one then... and without using your hands!) I wouldn’t go so far to say that technology is completely neutral though, because some things are made to kill as many as possible. Science seems to have become the servant of power. Thankfully, there are some scientists who will do unfunded research and publish unpopular findings. It is critical to focus on the thinking and beliefs behind and beyond the tech and science. We have always been “going forward”. The nature and particulars of how we do so can vary greatly, however.

“The ever-rising gods”

At one time long, long ago, it is said that humans lived with a sense that the gods were all around them. Call it perhaps pantheism, animist, or immanence. Whatever the name for it, we were in touch with the spirits, despite the simple life, painful dentistry, and occasional battles. Then eventually, the gods merged into One, perhaps like how the tributaries of a river seem to merge into one source. This One was not here, perhaps because the One was too good or too big to be just here in a place so common. So the One was thought to be “up there” somewhere, looking down at us. Some thought the One was indifferent, some thought caring. And as the One kept rising farther and farther up in our minds, perhaps inevitably some doubted the existence or the relevance of the One. Even those committed to the belief had little left to do except quibble about the minutiae concerning the characteristics and preferences of the One.

This is not intended be anti-religion, or even anti-monotheism. The point of this story is that with the gods elsewhere, the earth/world was stripped of its sacred significance. It slowly came to be viewed as “stuff” and “things” beneath us in the grand hierarchy. In general, this is the mindset bred into us now. This is us. It is ancient tradition and today’s news, all rolled into one. Quite a dilemma.

What are the solutions? I don’t particularly know, as the situation is so vast, and has such deep roots. How does one repair a moving vehicle? How does one change direction on a downhill sled ride? How do you diffuse a bomb? If one works quickly, can a parachute be knitted by a falling person in time to be of use? The specifics vary with how the question is posed, and with how the situation is framed.

But the very general answer is to do whatever is necessary and inevitable with extreme care, effort, and concentration. It is figuring out what to keep, and what to change. What is working, and what is broken. Our task is both as simple and complicated as that. When will people agree on anything? When the time is right there can be unity of purpose. Not total agreement or homogeneity of thought, but a type of cooperation is necessary. And necessity gives birth to all manner of invention, all of which starts within our minds.

:nerd: Quiz time about the fascinating subject of matter and energy!

1. What is the fourth state of matter? (along with solids, liquids, and gasses)
2. What is the state of matter that most of the known universe exists in?
3. What (debatably) is a potential transitional state between matter and energy?