Re: The native genius of human nature

On Jul 15, 8:48 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Okay. Let me paraphrase what you've just said:

*Humans have a capacity, different from other animals, to understand
and effect their environment. As such humans are able to alter
(perhaps even determine) the course of their development. I think they
should do so.*

Now from the perspective of economy, you'll have to forgive me if I
don't see the point in taking an extended paragraph to say the above.
And from the perspective of content, what you are actually saying
amounts to a set of truisms. There is no big picture here that anyone
is ignoring, nor is there, from what I can tell, anything with which
anyone would disagree. There is nothing new here at all.

First of all, I greatly appreciate you're taking the trouble to
dissect my argument. I don't agree with your analysis (I hardly think
you'd expect me to agree so readily) but responding to it is certainly
a useful exercise for me - if not, you may claim, for you or anyone
else.

Your precis says - tidily - some of what I say. However, I would
contend that it simplifies and reduces my ideas in many respects.
Actually, my overriding idea - that we are a gifted creature who will
eventually create a commensurate society - is in itself a very simple
statement. I would suggest that its very simplicity os the fruit of
considerable effort. I would also suggest that the simplicity is an
effort to cut through many much more complicated - and erroneous, in
my view - notions of the human being. Sometimes - as here - the pain
of seeing something clearly is to be told that you is too simple.

How do you reduce my idea?
First, you ignore my opening point in the original posting: that the
inherent forces (I would say now the predominant forces) in any
situation will, if given time, find expression. I raised the point in
the context of the universe - billions of years of turmoil leading
eventually to the extraordinary regularity of the universe we
observe.
Second, you ignore my reference to the magical symmetry of life and to
the vast adventure that ensued. We are told life is more than 4
billion years old. To trace the accretions on/to the original life-
form down the years is - to me - a fascinating process. I use the
phrase "jazz improvisation", ceaseless improvision on a logical theme.
I don't hold that life has a "force", as such - in the sene that the
components and combinations of matter have a force. Indeed the life-
forms we see are no more than logical outcome of the original
possibility offered by the replicating molecule - logical because
basically all that is happening is that every avenue of continuity is
explored. The relevance of this point to my overall argument, perhaps
underdeveloped in the original posting, is the inherent integrity of
life. I don't say "goodness" - it's not part of my view - but I would
certainly say that the life-process that spawned you and I is a worthy
one.
Third, you elide far too quickly from recognition of the human
capabilities and uniqueness (not at all conceded or recognised by
billions of people across the globe) to the observation that I think
we should use these resources. I'm not saying - merely - that we sould
use our resources. I take that for granted. I'm saying that our
resources qualify us to create an intelligent global society - I call
it Humanisation.I justify this statement - which, again, most people
across the globe would not accept - partly on the basis of the
resources just mentioned and partly on the statement - also ignored -
that the qualities we possess, product of aeons of development, will
find expression, will have their day - will, in other words, once
again in time come to the fore

Other observations,

- You should avoid overstatement, it makes it seem as if you're
propping up a weak argument. There is no need to say "everything
changed," because, well, not everything changed.
- You should avoid redundancy. Does it really add anything, after
writing "A creature existed who might know the entire nature -
origin, development and structure - of the universe we see..." to say
"who could also know its own provenance?"

I would suggest that the development etc of the universe is not at all
the same thing as the genesis of the human species.

- You should avoid melodramatic language, e.g., "drastically,"
"reflect at will," "unconscionable" etc. Usually this reflects an
attempt to take the mundane and dress it up to look important.
- If you refer to the phrase "native genius of the species" as *so-
called* because it was coined by someone else then I would be
interested to know who that might be. If, however, you are quoting
yourself, then referring to the quote as if it has some external
traction is just pompous.

Fair enough as regards the final point. I meant "so-called" only in
the sense that it was I who had coined the term. But I know what
you're saying. As regards the rhetoric...hmmm, maybe I overdo it, but
people seeking to make a strong case seek to make a strong case.

I'm sorry if this is excessively blunt, and it's just my opinion, but
I think what it comes down to is that you're using an awful lot of
words to say very little.

 (And just how> does one assail an age?)

As one assails anything - by criticising, comdemning, disparaging -
and eventually suggesting an advance on the standards and mores common
to the age. My contention is that this age is so perfectly poised -
predicated on rights, highly individual, relatively just and
egalitarian etc - that anyone who criticises it can easily be
dismissed as driven by a wish to terminate these hard-won freedoms.

Many of my observations above apply here as well.

A well known rule of writing is - "Show, don't tell." That means don't
deal in the abstract. If you've got something to say come right out
and say it.

You mean...tell?

Look it up. There are plenty of sites that offer writing help. After
you get a clue you'll be less likely to resort to sarcasm when you
feel exposed.
Well, I have a problem with this. I set myself up here to take
considerable stick - but if I give anything back I'm told I'm
sarcastic. I'll take all the stick in the world if I'm to learn from
it - but please allow me the right to puncture pious claptrap.

Let the import of your idea speak for itself, don't dress

it up in flowery obscurity. I've read several of your posts and I
honestly don't know what you're on about.
I really find that hard to believe

It might be a bit complicated. I'm waiting for Pixar to do the
animated version.

I assure you, it is anything but complicated.

Are you sure you do?

Not always. It's a developing thesis. It can be difficult to keep all
the threads in my head. But I think a fair reading gives a sense of
what I'm saying. Such a reading mightn't bring agreement - but it
should bring home the essential message which is that (a) the human
being has a unique potential; (b) we should expect that potential to
be fulfilled and (c) our current fascination with freedom and its
fruits acts as a hindrance - one among many hindrances - to that
fulfillment.

The only notion here that goes beyond restatement of the painfully
obvious is (c). Perhaps you could expand upon how humans might be
fascinated with freedom and in what way that hinders our fulfillment
(you might also explain what constitutes human fulfillment, hopefully
without the use of flowery abstractions).

Freedom, you'll agree, was hard-won. It is not just an abstract right.
It empowers. It confers upon the freed person the capacity to do far
more of what that person wants than was possible in the past. Also, in
a capitalist society commerce increases hugely the range of choices on
offer. The outcome - in passing - is a society, a collection of
individuals, focused on, demanding, levels of gratification impossible
to all but the privileged in the past. But the outcome, also, is a
conviction, a complacent conviction, I would say, that this the
optimum form of human society. How much better can life get for many
people? Even the phrase "this is as good as it gets" has currency. It
goes without saying that to rein back this freedom would be near
impossible. But - and this is where I'm coming from - such a society
diminishes any sense that there might be a greater dimension to human
existence. I believe that there is such a dimension and the whole
point of my posting is to broadcast that belief.

But the inherent force, the native genius,  of human nature - that
capacity to create an intelligent society - will, in time, prevail

Kurt Vonnegut's own first rule of creative writing was,

"Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will
not feel the time was wasted."

If you give us no specifics, if there is only minimal meaning
supporting windy rhetoric, then most of us total strangers will choose
to no longer waste our time.

Clearly, what I write is perceived as rhetoric. "Minimal meaning" I
would dispute, however. Maybe "maximum resistance"might be more
appropriate.

No, there is no resistance at all. There is nothing to resist. What
you've written yields to even the slightest prod. There is no way to
take issue because there is nothing substantive with which to
disagree.

Then, I take it I have a new convert :-)

RLC



Joseph Still Humming

RLC

Joseph Humming- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The native genius of human nature
    ... And from the perspective of content, what you are actually saying ... eventually create a commensurate society - is in itself a very simple ... fascinated with freedom and in what way that hinders our fulfillment ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: GPS and "the law"
    ... > freedom or too much freedom. ... need protection from other people. ... So it seems to me that you are saying that freedom can't exist without ... I don't think society can exist without some kind of comprimise in freedoms. ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
  • Re: In the News: Turkey probes Dawkins book
    ... murder, and make it much, much less of a threat to people and society. ... Please explain how you would enforce a law restricting private speech. ... An appropriate implementation of the freedom of speech and press must ... Turkish probably dislike Atheism and consider it immoral. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OotS 464
    ... "freedom" that define the alignments in the game. ... group or a society even more than oneself. ... character to Neutral X or even Lawful X, because that is not a Chaotic ... does not fit your faulty understanding of alignment. ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: SO GOOD, ITS CRIMINAL !
    ... We all have a say in society, that's what Democracy is all about. ... to worry, but Europe generally is a mess, some countries are now paying ... granting people a freedom? ... I'm not against personal freedoms but be mindful, there is more to life than ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
Loading