Re: The native genius of human nature

On Jul 15, 3:01 pm, Joseph Humming <jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

Which, with the purple prose removed, reduces to - *Our abilities
determine our achievements.*

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.

Hunh?

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 ignore this point in the same way, and for the same reason, that I
don't bother to notice that there is breathable air in each room I
enter. It is an obvious fact of life that neither presents an
opportunity to learn something new nor confirms anything already
considered. It is taken for granted because it would be a waste of
time to do otherwise.

In other words your point, such as it is, equates to *Things change.*

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.

*What things are is determined by what they were.* Or we could go with
*Things change* once again.

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.

*Things change in interesting ways.*

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.

*What things are is determined by what they were.* (Ignoring the
overstated final bit.)

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.

In what way does it make sense to designate "life-process that spawned
you and I" as "worthy?" This is just the kind of airy woo that makes
it seem like you are more interested in the sound of what you write
than what it means.

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.

Yes, I know. And all of that taken together amounts to little more
than *We are able to alter (perhaps even determine) the course of our
development, and should do so.* There is nothing novel there. Even
when you think you are clarifying you end us simply restating a
truism.

By the way, I've never run into anyone who suggests we should consider
_not_ creating an "intelligent global society." Suggesting that doing
so is a good thing doesn't really seem, to me, to rise to the level of
insight deserving of its own neologism.

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

*Our abilities determine our achievements,* *Things change,* take your
pick.

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.

No comment.

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.

You are, of course, allowed that right. But owning the right to
puncture such claptrap does you little good if you are unskilled at
recognizing it.

<snip>

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.

*Freedom is good.*

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.

*Societies evolve.*

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.

*Humans are short-lived and think short-term.*

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.

*Humans should think long-term.*

I'll say one last time that I think you employ too many words in the
service of not an awful lot of content.

Look. Some things are becoming obvious to me. It seems clear that you
are a well-meaning guy who wants to positively affect the world. And
as I look back over my responses to you I feel like I'm getting more
pedantic and trenchant, and maybe even a bit mean. Well, I don't want
that trend to continue, especially in response to a guy I think is
generally pretty sincere, so I'm going to stop here. I wish you well.

RLC


.

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 ... It confers upon the freed person the capacity to do far ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The native genius of human nature
    ... And from the perspective of content, what you are actually saying ... We are told life is more than 4 ... global society which reflects the essential worth of life. ... 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)
  • Rush & Rushs Are Hypocrites, Was: Re: Bellyaching
    ... support his liberty and rights to bodily integrity just as much as I ... I'm saying they have a right to bodily integrity...to not having their ... And, a legally found junkie. ... See " Freedom Of Speech ". ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: The worlds shortest fairy tale
    ... saying that where mommy dearest might see, but just between you and I, ... of people somewhere who liak worship the very words that I type. ... "Freedom, true freedom, is nothing more than intellectual advantage over others." ... "I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you ...
    (alt.2600)
Loading