There's still some work to do on the cover, but...pretty cool, huh?
Well, it seems we've reached that point. The book is in its final editing stages, and so I guess it's sample offering time. Thanks to those who've shown interest for your patience, as well as for your support. I'll probably do a couple read-alouds on my YouTube channel as well, if I get a chance. And of course, many thanks to Chip Smith for for instigating all this, and for seeing it through to fruition. On with the show...
At one time or another I suppose we all get sucked into the
argument over whether TRUE altruism exists. Well, I’m not so
innocent as to believe in unadulterated selflessness. But neither
am I so cynical as to suspect every motivation behind apparently
genuine munificence.
Here’s the way I see it. In the beginning, all of us are like
tightly wound balls of string (I’m speaking of consciousness
here; or maybe awareness is a better word, with the emphasis
on ‘self’ awareness). In the physical sense, we’re just as much a
part of the larger environment surrounding us as we’ll ever be.
But our perceptive pointers are all turned inward, and everything is about us. Actually, everything IS us! The summer sun is the heat of our skin. The bottle of milk is the feeling of a full stomach; and so on.
Time proceeds. Slowly the little ball of string, jostled and
batted about by the everchanging flux of circumstance, begins
to unravel. Tendrils of perception wander outwards, reconnoitering and telegraphing their discoveries back down the threads via diverse sensory pathways, altering the patterns at the core. Evoking responses. Years go by, and eventually our psychic‘selves’ become more or less tangled up in the larger world. A subtle shift has occurred. Where once the whole world existed in a ball of string, now the ball of string has become the whole world! This entanglement, especially as it pertains to other lives, is my metaphoric description of what has otherwise come to be understood as ‘empathy’ or ‘compassion.’ Or even pity, if you prefer.
I should emphasize that what I’ve described here are the
polar extremes of a situation. Ultimately, all of us are both ball
and entanglement. Selfishness, and selflessness. Desire, and
generosity. Lust, and abandonment. The degree to which we
are one or the other (an imprecise dichotomy, I’ll grant, as we
are always both), is determined by the initial state of the ball
of string, as well as by the subsequent impact of the greater
environment upon it. Put another way, the limits to which we
psychologically extend ourselves to include others mark the parameters of our empathetic selves, the capacity of which varies from person to person. I suspect this process continues somewhat farther down the food chain of the lesser sentient creation, though perhaps it’s not so easily recognizable.
We care, or we don’t care. We put out feelers and move forward,
or draw back. And there is conflict. Between ourselves.
Within ourselves. Yet somehow, out of this morass of fallible
and vacillating emotional states, there has emerged what I like
to think of as a universal humanistic sensibility. An internalized
set of values spanning time and cultural boundaries. A substratum of shared feeling informing our laws and customs, and lifting us above a purely mechanical utilitarianism. Some may choose to label this phenomenon a ‘moral compass,’ though the term ‘morality’ is fraught with so much dogmatic hairsplitting that I’m loath to employ it. Be that as it may, it all comes down to what we think, or perhaps more the point, what we feel, about what’s right as opposed to what’s wrong.
Concerning that last bit, I tend to believe we’re a lot closer
to each other than we often let on. I also hope to demonstrate that most of us, each deep in his/her heart of hearts, knows that bringing new life into the world is wrong.
So very wrong.
This'll be the only excerpt I'll be posting on this blog. Actually, I posted it here on accident...LOL...then decided to go ahead and leave it here for now. Anyone interested in more excerpts should visit my blog at antinatalism.net. T'anks!
On the altruism thing... there were scientists from Israeli who located the gene responsible for selfishness/altruism.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060529_altruism.htm
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/01/israeli_researc.php
I can vaguely recall reading an a story of some kind (journal or something of a true event) where the man it was written about tried to disprove the idea that there existed this type of gene (because this idea has been around for a long while) and when he found that it could only be true... he went into a deep depression and later killed himself.
Happy story, isn't it?
I guess what I mean to say is that TRUE altruism doesn't exist. We're biologically inclined.
shadb:
ReplyDeleteI suppose that eventually we'll discover genetic markers for many, perhaps all, attitudes and behaviors. I have a couple of thoughts about that. First of all, there's the question of scope. Just how far do we take this 'hardwired' approach? We were talking about this same thing the other day concerning psychopathology. What's the degree of hard determinism based exclusively in the genes, minus the environmental factors at play? Personally, I think it's a mixed bag, and that a lot of this genetic stuff reflects predisposition to one degree or another, but how these predispositions ultimately play out are predicated upon the whole genetic/environmental milieu.
There's also the question regarding the mental, or abstract, side of things. Can nothing be said to be 'real' besides the purely physical processes? Just because the abstract world emerges from brain chemistry (I'll go with the naturalistic assumption here), doesn't make the abstract world less real. Just different. In fact, it is the sphere of all human experiential reality. Admittedly, we're on somewhat shaky ground here, and I don't want to lapse into some kind of dualism. However, human experience, including attitudes and emotions, do exist. For myself, I find it convenient to think of the abstract world as running along a parallel track to the physical one. Not divorced from the physical, mind you, but separate enough to make distinctions. I believe love exists, as well as hatred, hope, empathy, etc. Not as magical entities existing somewhere 'out there', but as natural qualities emerging from physical processes (same goes for my feelings about mathematics, btw).
This could turn into a very long conversation, but I'll leave it there for now. As always, thanks for the input :)
shadb:
ReplyDeleteOne more thing: Just to clarify on my first point a bit, I don't want to leave the impression that the genetic stuff isn't significant. It's just that we often tend to oversimplify, zooming in on one point at the expense of the whole picture. The human organism is like an extremely complicated weather system. No aspect of human behavior comes about by the flipping of a single, autonomous switch. Rather, our personalities emerge from a sea of disparate influences. Although certainly, some influences weigh more heavily and others, and you never know just what's going to 'flip the wagon' in terms of identifiable (or should I say, formally defined) personality markers.
... I don't want to lapse into some kind of dualism. However, human experience, including attitudes and emotions, do exist. For myself, I find it convenient to think of the abstract world as running along a parallel track to the physical one. Not divorced from the physical, mind you, but separate enough to make distinctions. I believe love exists, as well as hatred, hope, empathy, etc. Not as magical entities existing somewhere 'out there', but as natural qualities emerging from physical processes (same goes for my feelings about mathematics, btw).
ReplyDeleteSounds pretty dualist to me. Are you arguing for some sort of Platonic ideal? How do natural qualities that emerge from physical processes run on a track that is 'parallel' to the physical world? Mathematics, for example, it doesn't stand on its own; there's always the underlying assumption that it represents reality. To me the abstraction is the pattern that we form about reality
Does it seem too deterministic and robotlike that our experiences can be studied and explained in terms of biochemical processes? Isn't it the complexity of the pattern that makes the difference? I mean, the Mona Lisa isn't just dried paint on a canvas...
Even if ultimately we don't have free will, isn't what really matters is that the level of our neural functioning is complex enough that we think and act as though we have free will?
ildi:
ReplyDelete"Are you arguing for some sort of Platonic ideal? How do natural qualities that emerge from physical processes run on a track that is 'parallel' to the physical world?"
Nope. I favor no stripe of deontology. I'm just saying we can talk from the level of abstract reality, i.e. thought, ideas, emotions, without constantly referencing the biological substratum from which this stuff seemingly emerges.
"To me the abstraction is the pattern that we form about reality."
I'd just remind you here that the pattern is as real as the 'reality' it's referencing. I say 'ball'. The thing I'm referencing is real. The corresponding thought is also real. So is the word which is the referent for the thing. My point to shadb was that the human milieu of thoughts, feelings and whatnot, IS a reality unto itself. Psychology is real. Pathology is real. And sometimes it makes more sense to talk in these terms, than it does to constantly reference material substructures. But no, no Platonic ideals are involved.
"Does it seem too deterministic and robotlike that our experiences can be studied and explained in terms of biochemical processes? Isn't it the complexity of the pattern that makes the difference? I mean, the Mona Lisa isn't just dried paint on a canvas...?
Not at all. In fact, I'm perfectly at home seeing things as strictly deterministic. As far as your point about the Mona Lisa, I think we're talking about overlapping magisterium (wasn't that Gould's phrase? I forget). From one perspective, the Mona Lisa IS just dried paint on a canvas. From the perspective of aesthetic appreciation, it is something else. Which is sort of the point I was making. And in appreciating the painting on the aesthetic level, it isn't necessary to reference the chemical composition of the pigments used, though surely that reality is always significant. That's what I meant by 'parallel tracks'.
"Even if ultimately we don't have free will, isn't what really matters is that the level of our neural functioning is complex enough that we think and act as though we have free will?"
In my mind, free will is actually one of those absrtactions which is most divorced from reality. We acknowledge its fiction in so many way, yet cling to it because it's sort of an egoic support structure. Unnecessary, in my opinion, and something we could learn to let go of without too many problems. I used to write about that subject a long time ago, in another life. Let me know if you're interested; I have some tremendous links on the subject lurking somewhere in my computer...LOL!
And in appreciating the painting on the aesthetic level, it isn't necessary to reference the chemical composition of the pigments used, though surely that reality is always significant. That's what I meant by 'parallel tracks'.
ReplyDeleteOk, you're standing there in front of it, going what a fucking genius that Leonardo was! A sense of wonder, awe, serenity, maybe a connection with humanity comes over you. You may even tear up. These are all biochemical changes occurring in your body based on your brain's interpretation of the pattern the various chemical compositions of the paint on canvas make. I don't see where the parallel track comes in.
Let's take beauty. A lot of things we consider beautiful are based on the golden ratio. They had a show on the Science channel (I think) about this plastic surgeon who developed a golden mask based on the golden ratio. Looks as diverse as Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman fit the golden mask ratios. (Lyle Lovett did not.) One theory is that we find symmetrical faces beautiful because symmetry indicates health (disease can disfigure), making us attracted to someone with better breeding potential. This is just an example to me of no extra parallel track being needed because a math model can be developed at least in one example to predict what we find beautiful.
Maybe I'm just too much of a materialist mindset to understand your point?
Jim:
ReplyDeleteAh, I didn't mean to point /only/ to a genetic explanation as a sole indicator. I assumed that any genetic trait is only a predisposition rather than a hard rule (and looking back, I did state that we are 'biologically inclined,' not required). While there are camps in the psychology field that tend towards one extreme over another... these are few and I'm not one of them. Environment causes triggers in this genetic code to induce certain traits.
As for the complexity of our reactions (thoughts, behaviors, etc), I'm in agreement with you that we are often at home in explaining it in other terms than those that are found in the strict scientific sense. This is for a number of reasons, prominent among them is that it is comfortable. Another is that most of us are too ignorant of the various scientific fields to properly explain these "phenomenon" to ourselves and to others.
To further your point, Jim, I actually think that always referring to the scientific explanation for things such as feelings and thoughts and those sorts of things, is ultimately dangerous for an individual. Yes, we should acknowledge it, and be aware of the reality, but a certain amount of delusion is necessary to survive and make progress. Unfortunately, this brings about a problem, doesn't it? How much delusion do we allow ourselves?
(Also, perhaps delusion is too hard a word for this because what I propose is an acknowledgement of reality, but also an acknowledgement that we sometimes need to create distinctions between these two fields).
Forgot to mention that I would love to see what you have on the free will subject, Jim. It's always a fascinating one to look into.
ReplyDeleteAnother is that most of us are too ignorant of the various scientific fields to properly explain these "phenomenon" to ourselves and to others.
ReplyDeleteThat's true of many things. I'm pretty ignorant of what goes on in my monitor and CPU that allows me to communicate with y'all, but I don't feel the need to think of it as other than having a scientific explanation.
To further your point, Jim, I actually think that always referring to the scientific explanation for things such as feelings and thoughts and those sorts of things, is ultimately dangerous for an individual. Yes, we should acknowledge it, and be aware of the reality, but a certain amount of delusion is necessary to survive and make progress.
I would say quite the opposite. It seems to me that pretty much all the progress we've made as a species is due to scientific explanations. The resulting technology has given us scary shit like nuclear bombs, true, but it has also made secular civilizations possible where peoples' quality of life is generally good enough that they don't blame their suffering on the punishment of some deity and don't look to an afterlife for surcease.
Shadb:
ReplyDelete"(Also, perhaps delusion is too hard a word for this because what I propose is an acknowledgement of reality, but also an acknowledgement that we sometimes need to create distinctions between these two fields)."
I think we're in agreement here, if I'm reading you right. Lest we get lost in the garden of semantical delights, the catalyst for this discussion was when you said this-
"On the altruism thing... there were scientists from Israeli who located the gene responsible for selfishness/altruism."
My points about this statement were basically-
1. Things are probably a bit more complicated than that.
2. There is an abstract arena of reality where things like true altruism, love, hatred, lust, and the myriad of other principles connected to emergent qualities of consciousness DO exist. And although the abstract world is dependent upon the material world for its existence (at least, that's the naturalistic assumption), it's not a delusion in and of itself.
Anyway, I think we're in agreement.
ildi:
Maybe I'm not being clear enough (wouldn't be the first time), or maybe we're over-thinking things a bit. Be that as it may, I'll leave it stand where it is for now, since otherwise I think I'd probably be in danger of repeating myself.
Btw, here's a wonderful source to get started on the free will question. The Strawson stuff is particularly good.
shadb:
ReplyDeleteI'm of a mind to dust off the old thinking cap and discuss some epistemology, but not the kind of god oriented stuff that we've all seen TOO much of...LOL! Probably wouldn't be a good fit on this blog. I had a philosophy blog a while back, but it didn't survive one of my cuts. Free will, materialism, abstract entities...that sort of thing. You seem interested in that stuff, and mentioned some email correspondence recently. Still interested? If so, shoot me a mail and we can begin. I have something in mind.