tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post7487337032151258624..comments2024-03-28T20:04:20.286-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Binocular Cosmic Vision and the Expansion of Mental Space (6.06.09)Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-50749558598576655482008-06-13T05:22:00.000-07:002008-06-13T05:22:00.000-07:00Van - I read that that as the "conflict" between t...Van - I read that that as the "conflict" between the base - but human - impulse to vengeance, and the civilized - but difficult - 'message' of limited retaliation and forgiveness.<BR/><BR/>New Guineans - at least, by Diamond's report - haven't gotten the latter message, that endlessly <I>holding on</I> to hatred is wrong. (Even C.S. Lewis noted that hatred has a purpose.)<BR/><BR/>Not that Diamond is flawless, if I can essay a minor pun. But that doesn't mean there's <I>nothing</I> insightful in what he's written.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-15256121152971258332008-06-12T17:55:00.000-07:002008-06-12T17:55:00.000-07:00Ray said "Well, perhaps I luckily missed something...Ray said "Well, perhaps I luckily missed something, but that's not the point I took home from "Guns, Germs, and Steel". In any case, I think the point I outlined is quite defensible."<BR/><BR/>Ray... the small excerpt above from the link that you didn't link to, is from Jarrod Diamond, same author, same philosophy, same point of view, and same tactics.<BR/><BR/>If you missed it, you're fortunate, but I assure you, <I>he</I> didn't.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76327092745060042352008-06-12T17:34:00.000-07:002008-06-12T17:34:00.000-07:00Well, perhaps I luckily missed something, but that...Well, perhaps I luckily missed something, but that's not the point I took home from "Guns, Germs, and Steel". In any case, I think the point I outlined is quite defensible.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-19135659885340044812008-06-12T15:16:00.000-07:002008-06-12T15:16:00.000-07:00Ray said "Not unlike this, really." (which ends wi...Ray said "Not unlike this, really." (which ends with:)"A potentiated cell took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference"<BR/><BR/>Not that its particularly relevant, but the <A HREF="http://www.bartleby.com/119/1.html" REL="nofollow">Frost poem ref'd</A>, which we all usually read it at the first level and ascribe to having the guts and fortitude to choose " the one less traveled by"... but if you read it carefully, it's told from the point of view of someone looking back on their life for comfort and 'seeing' into it what possibly wasn't there to begin with....Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76915593731915548032008-06-12T14:48:00.000-07:002008-06-12T14:48:00.000-07:00"Um, Van - you may want to check your attributions..."Um, Van - you may want to check your attributions. I didn't link to that article."<BR/><BR/>Oh <I>surrre</I>, I get myself all worked up into a fine lather, and you attempt to divert attention just because you didn't link to the link I said you linked to...<BR/><BR/>(offer's to let neighbor light cigarettes from either blazing red cheek)<BR/><BR/><I>Sorry about that, Cheif</I><BR/><BR/>(sheesh)<BR/><BR/>However, what I said does still fully apply to Jared Diamond, and his ilk.<BR/><BR/>"And I think you and Hanson may have missed a point in the Diamond's book. Environment played an important role - in some cases and senses, a necessary one - but not a sufficient role. Geography made some things possible, but it took actual people and historical contingency to exploit it."<BR/><BR/>Bollocks. That isn't the point of Diamond's book. Whatever incidental comment sucking up to that idea he may sprinkile here and there, he undermines completely with the rest of what he says. I've read his book, and several of his articles. Like Kant posturing as a defender of liberty, while destroying every intellectual foundation it rests upon, it just ain't so.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-46783261267026467362008-06-12T14:30:00.000-07:002008-06-12T14:30:00.000-07:00Um, Van - you may want to check your attributions....Um, Van - you may want to check your attributions. I didn't link to that article.<BR/><BR/>And I think you and Hanson may have missed a point in the Diamond's book. Environment played an important role - in some cases and senses, a necessary one - but not a <I>sufficient</I> role. Geography made some things possible, but it took actual people and historical contingency to exploit it.<BR/><BR/>Not unlike <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/historical_contingency_in_the.php" REL="nofollow">this</A>, really.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-33601826346856934632008-06-12T14:29:00.000-07:002008-06-12T14:29:00.000-07:00This part especially disgusts me, from the remaind...This part especially disgusts me, from the remainder of the paragraph I excerpted above, "<I>Meanwhile, even among Americans who had never seen a live Japanese soldier or the dead body of an American relative killed by the Japanese, intense hatred and fear of Japanese became widespread. Traditional New Guineans, by contrast, have from childhood onward often seen warriors going out and coming back from fighting; they have seen the bodies of relatives killed by the enemy, listened to stories of killing, heard fighting talked about as the highest ideal, and witnessed successful warriors talking proudly about their killings and being praised for them. If New Guineans end up feeling unconflicted about killing the enemy, it’s because they have had no contrary message to unlearn. <BR/></I>"<BR/>They complete the equivocation dance, with a neat pivot that puts the Americans in particular, and Western Civilization in general, in the role of the flawed and inferior <BR/><BR/><I>"If New Guineans end up feeling unconflicted about killing the enemy, it’s because they have had no contrary message to unlearn." </I><BR/><BR/>Not because the tribesmen haven't risen to the point of differentiating between the loss of a pig and the loss of a female, or haven't risen to the point of seeing 'others' as being as Human as they are, haven't risen to the point of being able to begin to grasp the concept of the value of all human life, and the necessity of Individual Rights, not because they've only managed to rise just the littlest amount above the animals they herd... no, no that's not the problem, the problem is that they have no contrary messages to unlearn.<BR/><BR/>And of course, that would mean admitting the existence of not only Individual Rights, but an Individual "I", Truth and a reality we are capable of grasping, which ultimately leads to the refutation of their Cartesian skepticism, and the demise of every leftist agenda they espouse and profit from.<BR/><BR/>Disgusting Filth Buckets.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-68545315625484365522008-06-12T14:04:00.000-07:002008-06-12T14:04:00.000-07:00Typical of your buddy Jarod's bilge is this from t...Typical of your buddy Jarod's bilge is this from the article you linked to above, "<I>Then, too, for Americans old enough to recall our hatred of Japan after Pearl Harbor, Daniel’s intense hatred of the Ombals may not seem so remote. After Pearl Harbor, hundreds of thousands of American men volunteered to kill and did kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese, often in face-to-face combat, by brutal methods that included bayonets and flamethrowers. Soldiers who killed Japanese in particularly large numbers or with notable bravery were publicly decorated with medals, and those who died in combat were posthumously remembered as heroes. Meanwhile, even among Americans who had never seen a live Japanese soldier or the dead body of an American relative killed by the Japanese, intense hatred and fear of Japanese became widespread.</I>"<BR/><BR/>It's the same equivocation dance that chompsky and the rest of them do, take two or more isolated facts, tie them to a general term devoid of context, in this case revenge, and them declare them to be on an equal par. It is a dance of dehumanization, anti-intellectualism, and seeing as they know full damn well what they are doing, evil.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OzIMHowtL8" REL="nofollow">I fart in their general direction.</A>Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-23571009714503964552008-06-12T13:50:00.000-07:002008-06-12T13:50:00.000-07:00"Extending our "social instincts and sympathies" -..."Extending our "social instincts and sympathies" - growing the in-group - involves adding to the human family. Recognizing a relationship at the more-than-blood level."<BR/><BR/>No, it doesn't. Instincts and sympathies do not of themselves extend beyond 'blood level' associations. That takes, Reality, Truth and an "I" honest and brave enough to derive one from the other.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-16507821319027570952008-06-12T13:47:00.000-07:002008-06-12T13:47:00.000-07:00Ray said "Any particular bone to pick with Diamond...Ray said "Any particular bone to pick with Diamond's book?"<BR/><BR/>Yeah, it, and the entire philosophical underpinings are the lowultimate in crap.<BR/><BR/>I don't have the book here, and thankfully I used the library on that one and didn't waste a dime on that deterministic slop, but <A HREF="http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042305.html" REL="nofollow">Victor Davis Hanson</A> did a rather good job of hitting the highlights, "For example, how did the Ptolemies create an even more dynamic civilization than that of the earlier dynastic pharaohs, when they inherited from them a supposedly exhausted and increasingly salinized landscape? Or why did the palatial culture of Mycenae prove to be a dead-end society, and yet the radically different Greek city-state centuries later blossomed in the exact same environment? "<BR/><BR/>(not that I feel strongly about it...)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-19920242242538199592008-06-12T13:41:00.000-07:002008-06-12T13:41:00.000-07:00Ray said "And re: Darwin's comment - you want inte...Ray said "And re: Darwin's comment - you want internecine conflict, look at the division over McCain. Yikes!"<BR/><BR/>Look closer, the conservatives conflict is over ideas, the dem's are battling over the collectivisms of race and gender.<BR/><BR/>No comparison.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-31575012078793008122008-06-12T13:33:00.000-07:002008-06-12T13:33:00.000-07:00Van - Any particular bone to pick with Diamond's b...Van - Any <I>particular</I> bone to pick with Diamond's book?<BR/><BR/>And re: Darwin's comment - you want internecine conflict, look at the division over McCain. Yikes!<BR/><BR/>But even families have internal conflicts. Extending our "social instincts and sympathies" - growing the in-group - involves adding to the human family. Recognizing a relationship at the more-than-blood level.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-20428965508686074492008-06-12T13:05:00.000-07:002008-06-12T13:05:00.000-07:00Ray said " I'd argue that external factors were pr...Ray said " I'd argue that external factors were pretty important to that development, too. Better tech leads to few people starving, for example."<BR/><BR/>If I'm to take that literaly, then I say no. False. <BR/><BR/>It has to come from within, before it can exist without. No Tech, without Techne first, and no Techne, without a mind free enough to conceive it. Jarod Diamond and his "Guns, Germs and goobers"... or whatever it was called, was, technically speaking - poop.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76574894200149281502008-06-12T12:23:00.000-07:002008-06-12T12:23:00.000-07:00Well, whatever the case may be, Government Can't M...Well, whatever the case may be, <A HREF="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmU5NWE5ZWE2MDcyMzhlMjE3OGNmOTIxZDYwODk0YzA=" REL="nofollow">Government Can't Make You Happy</A>.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-40430943587949407772008-06-12T12:14:00.000-07:002008-06-12T12:14:00.000-07:00Van - I'd argue that external factors were pretty ...Van - I'd argue that external factors were pretty important to that development, too. Better tech leads to few people starving, for example.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-30863723006510081282008-06-12T12:09:00.000-07:002008-06-12T12:09:00.000-07:00Ray said Darwin said "...the simplest reason would...Ray said Darwin said "...the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation..."<BR/><BR/>Yes that would be the simplest reason, which is why Darwin has been so useful to the lefties. All that does though, is extend, artificially, a collectivist basis, one prone to implode at the first realization of one groups neglected differences, and it shakes the whole conglomeration to its core (see the dem's o'bamamma & billary smoldering feud).<BR/><BR/>Something else must be identified and grasped within first, which I'd toss out as the Religious, the Philosophical and the Legal - without understanding and unity there, it's just a disunity beaten together with a fist.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-28662434885600425122008-06-12T11:59:00.000-07:002008-06-12T11:59:00.000-07:00Magnus, I generally agree and follow you on that (...Magnus, I generally agree and follow you on that (the extent of greek kiddy-creep has been exagerated... but any 'tent at all is beyond the pale). When I feel like engaging in futile and frustrating speculation, I tend to think that at some point the graphics processor reached the ability to manage 4D images and the all encompassing grasp of the Poetic was opened up... opened up to... 'Let there be Light!' (No Ray, the mechanics didn't create the "I", only facilitated its reflection).<BR/><BR/>My series on <A HREF="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/What%20are%20words%20for" REL="nofollow">What are Words for</A>, and <A HREF="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/Reasons%20of%20Reason" REL="nofollow">Reasons of Reason</A>, were stabs at that. It's kind of like stabbing at Godzilla though.<BR/><BR/>But all the details you mentioned... are they really key differences, or differences that appear Gross (in more ways than one), because we've made distinctions into them... as Joe Sixpack will pick up any (and all) of the glasses of wine on the table, gulp them down and "urrp! Yeah, good Wine!", where as the connoeseur will shudder at the thought, and then select only the particular vintage suitable for dish on his plate, and savor it, noticing and 'bouqet' and whatever else froggie distinctions they're prone to make. From Joe's point of view - it's all wine, and all gulpable, from the knowledgable ones point of view, there are vast distinctions and barely the same in any distinguishable way to him - and yet they are still wine.<BR/><BR/>Is killing the imperfect or girl baby for the prehistoric Joe, and seeing that the imperfect child gets the necessary addition care needed, and the Girl is securely lifted up onto the pedestal... from our detailed point of view, they are vastly different, we <I>see</I> the horrors Joe is engaging in... but Joe? He sees dealing with a situation in its proper way.<BR/><BR/>Got to be careful going down this road, the precipice of relativism is a sharp and steep drop to either side, a mistep I do not make... but it takes concentration on your footing....Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-51325228202111853392008-06-12T11:43:00.000-07:002008-06-12T11:43:00.000-07:00Magnus - One potential way to understand that prog...Magnus - One potential way to understand that progress is the "expansion of the 'in-group'". Human nature is actually pretty good about cooperating and playing nice with the people we consider 'folks like us'. Those we consider 'outsiders', though... oy.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps 2.0 came about when groups of people started to be able to cooperate in numbers larger than a small tribe. The in-group has expanded greatly since then, from nobility to commoners and even to (gasp) <I>women</I> and <I>other 'races'</I>.<BR/><BR/>"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races." - Charles DarwinRay Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-69676736472763576232008-06-12T11:29:00.000-07:002008-06-12T11:29:00.000-07:00Magnus said "There isn't really any discontinuity ...Magnus said "There isn't really any discontinuity like between 1.x and 2.0."<BR/><BR/>Mushroom said "Then it obviously is not a Microsoft app."<BR/><BR/>Van said "Bwahhahhh-HAAA!"<BR/>(grabs paper towels, wipes up mess)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-65742996409110578632008-06-12T11:22:00.000-07:002008-06-12T11:22:00.000-07:00Ray said "the potential for that progress was ther...Ray said "the potential for that progress was there the whole time... what changed to bring it out?"<BR/><BR/>The slow opening up and colonizing of interior Space. The slow process of clearing, tilling, excavating, marking and mapping of human nature. Poetically advancing from the flat sketch to Mercator maps, to globes as well as travelling it in fact. You can see the beginnings of this in Lascaux.<BR/><BR/>Moving our stories from the group to the self, without losing the their pOint. Realizing that as the person develops and maps their own interior space, they can and must be trusted to respect the boundaries in our outer space, because they are inseparable - denying that, denies progress<BR/><BR/>"Which brings up the issue, do knowledge and ideas affect, alter, modify human nature... or merely make more granular distinctions within it's normal operations - no matter the level of personal or societal advancement? This is one I still waffle about on...."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps puzzling because I'm trying to do the skeptical dance, and reduce the Three axioms to a single, and eliminating the One in the process - they are woven together. The Polis, the People and the Word; the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost; Existence, Identity & Consciousness. <BR/><BR/>At some point you have to admit you can't even refer to a part without the use of the whole.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-58069378317197174712008-06-12T11:20:00.000-07:002008-06-12T11:20:00.000-07:00There isn't really any discontinuity like between ...<I> There isn't really any discontinuity like between 1.x and 2.0. </I><BR/><BR/>Then it obviously is not a Microsoft app.mushroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07651027035577798096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-38173457474839151362008-06-12T11:01:00.000-07:002008-06-12T11:01:00.000-07:00Van,I like to compare the human psyche to an opera...Van,<BR/>I like to compare the human psyche to an operating system. The version our ancestors shared with the Neanderthals and probably with various earlier hominids could be called 1.x, which was replaced by 2.0 some 65-40 000 years ago. (There seems to have been local beta tests of various features at least as far back as 90 000 years ago, but they seem not to have come together.) The upgrade was quite sudden, and spelled the end for our Neanderthal friends and probably for many individual humans and even tribes. Mankind seems to have gone through a bottleneck at that time, which is attributed to volcano activity but could also simply mean that most of the then humans simply didn't "get it" and died out.<BR/><BR/>There is surely a huge difference between version 2.0 and whatever we have today. If you think of even classical Greece, it was perfectly OK for a father to kill a child that displeased him, and sexual abuse of children was close to mandatory. And even 200 years ago, it was perfectly normal and legal for men to duel to the death over mating rights rather than simply asking the woman. So there sure has been some serious upgrade.<BR/><BR/>But I am sure we are still in the 2.x series. There isn't really any discontinuity like between 1.x and 2.0.Magnus Itlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18445902788427523461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-60038452346261326922008-06-12T10:45:00.000-07:002008-06-12T10:45:00.000-07:00Van - So, the 'evidence' either way is kinda vague...Van - So, the 'evidence' either way is kinda vague. As Julie states, though, "the kind of unhappiness we usually face here pales in comparison to the lives of Sudanese villagers or Saudi house slaves".<BR/><BR/>I'd argue that <I>that</I> kind of unhappiness has declined greatly over recorded history. It's by no means gone, or likely to vanish entirely anytime soon, but still... I have a hard time seeing that as anything but 'progress'.<BR/><BR/>Of course, once basic needs - material and liberty - are met, happiness becomes <I>much</I> more of a choice. A <I>lot</I> more people have that choice these days, though, happily.<BR/><BR/>And another point - made in a different way in "Evolution For Everyone" by Wilson, which I'll flog yet again - is that "basic human nature" "hasn't changed much at all" in that time. So the potential for that progress was there the whole time... what changed to bring it out?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-56406756040302390322008-06-12T10:05:00.000-07:002008-06-12T10:05:00.000-07:00Re grace coming in the most abject circumstances, ...Re grace coming in the most abject circumstances, the cases of mystical insights and prison house conversions are too numerous to mention.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-80848878428169393012008-06-12T10:02:00.000-07:002008-06-12T10:02:00.000-07:00Which brings up the issue, do knowledge and ideas ...Which brings up the issue, do knowledge and ideas affect, alter, modify human nature... or merely make more granualar distinctions within it's normal operations - no matter the level of personal or societal advancement? This is one I still waffle about on....Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com