either/or versus plus/and

[zhao]

I disagree. We're able to rebel against that base, though, but it's still there. Where do you get this nonsense from? Nature being a balance of terror is a conclusion I come to watching nature, not watching humanity. Animals, even within the same species, fight all the time. Of course, to commit mass murder you'll need the means to do it, but why do you think we started to create those means in the first place? How did we become corrupted if we by nature are good? Oh, so capitalism is the explanation. A bit like satan for Jehovas Witnesses. And why did capitalism arise? Now, I'm not trying to defend capitalism, I'm not saying I like the way the world is or dog eat dog culture or Nike commercials or anything like that. But if we are going to better ourselves, we have to realize why we behave like we do, rather than thinking everything would be great if we could just get back to nature. We never left it, and that's our problem. Here I agree, but any species would be just as destructive to the world around it if it had as much power as we do.

hamarplatz, I respect your views and ideas, but you are the dictionary definition, PRIME example, of what I was describing: the kind of thinking thoroughly conditioned by civilization.

 

[DJ PIMP]

The explanation is probably much more simple: the concept of dualism arise because of sexual reproduction, the existence of two genders trick people into thinking in opposites - if we had three genders, I'd bet trialism would rule.

Gender is a juicy example, but dualism doesn't imply opposites, its a whole formed by two parts.

I was more thinking of the experience of being part of an environment and simultaneously seperate from it. Primal cultures would interpret the experience more toward the former, Western/technlogical culture the latter. Christianity isn't the biological root of how the sense of seperation evolved, but its explanation lies underneath much of our thought. "A balance of terror"? Sounds like God from the Old Testament

 

[dominic]

This is a bad argument, you are confusing levels here. Nature is also either/or in a sense that it cannot do two things at once.

yes, but . . . .

(1) nature is eternal, men are mortal

(2) i'm also arguing from the standpoint of how we encounter nature and culture, which appear to us to do many things at once (i.e., there's always all kinds of music going on at any one time, i.e., there was more than simply jungle going down in 1994), to recombine constantly, to mutate, etcetera -- i.e., complexity and infinity, the and/plus -- whereas when we encounter our own lives, it is always in terms of what shall i do now, what shall i plan to do then, things resolving into an either/or

If what you call human nature is making choices then there is no disjunction at all.

yes, but human choices are governed by time/finitude/mortality, whereas nature and culture are not

Some things are either/or and others are and/plus and neither explains the world fully, they are just abstract labels.

true -- but why bother to generalize about anything in that case? isn't one generalization more accurate than the other?

Look at the kind of fun games you can play with abstract terms with fuzzy meanings: a thing is either either/or or and/plus; the world isn't an either/or place because there are and/plus things that exist. There's a logical falacy there and I think that this kind of falacy is all over this thread.

i wasn't really trying to make a logical argument

rather, the argument follows from the fact of human finitude

nature and culture are endless processes

each human life comes to a definite end

 

[dominic]

so suppose you're making a piece of music . . . .

while making the music that is how you are spending your time -- you'd EITHER be making music, plus all the preparation and expenses involved in making the music, OR you'd be hanging out a bar somewhere, or if you're diurnal, perhaps at the office

however, in making the musical artifact, you might draw upon several disparate ideas and traditions -- this is the PLUS/AND

the PLUS/AND belongs to culture and nature -- all that is brought into being

the EITHER/OR to human life as it is lived under finite conditions

 

[hamarplazt]

Gender is a juicy example, but dualism doesn't imply opposites, its a whole formed by two parts.

Yes you're right. But a whole formed by two parts is not a particular christian, or even western, thought. Taoism being the most obvious example, but I'm pretty sure there's more... My point was more how that dualism developed in the first place, and that, I think, is through thinking-in-opposites.

 

[hamarplazt]

hamarplatz, I respect your views and ideas, but you are the dictionary definition, PRIME example, of what I was describing: the kind of thinking thoroughly conditioned by civilization.

Confucius, I respect your views and ideas, but there's no thinking that is not conditioned by civilization, and you're a dictionary definition, PRIME example of that.

 

[hamarplazt]

I would love to continue this discussion but I think this is not the proper place. Care to choose a forum and start a thread?

Hm, well.... you're right about this not being the place, but I'm not really sure I'd like to start another thread about it. I allways deliberately avoid participating in the Thought-treads because I know it'll end with taking far too much time. I'm allready beginning to regret I got into this one.

 

[zhao]

Confucius, I respect your views and ideas, but there's no thinking that is not conditioned by civilization, and you're a dictionary definition, PRIME example of that.

you might be right on some level....

but my thinking has drastically changed and shifted recently, after reading these anarcho-primitivist / anti-civilization books out of Columbia Uni press.

guys like John Zerzan may be extreme and some might say one-sided in their stance, but their views are indeed based on recent archaeological findings -- findings which disprove many commonly accepted notions and fundamental beliefs about ourselves -- foundational beliefs which shape human society as we know it. and these new findings and their shaking of the foundations of our ideological constructs have radical implications on all levels of life and what we need as a species at this point is a drastic revision of everything we take for granted and have not questioned up to now.

one of the most important things this research and data does is put things into perspective in the bigger picture: civilization (language, agriculture, heirarchy, power) has been around 5,000 years while humans (Homo-Sapien AND Homo-Erectus, which we now know has the same brain capacity as Sapien) have been on earth for more than 4 million years. so civilzation is like a new hat we are trying on for a day to see if we like it.

and about life before civilization, sure there is a lot of conjecture, and even the scientific validity of carbon dating itself has been called into question recently, but there are still many things which archaeologists world wide has come to agree on.

just a few that I can remember and off the top:

organized hunting did not appear until AFTER agriculture. and pre-civilized diet consisted of 99 per cent plants and the occasional found carcass of an animal. thus the phrase "Hunter Gatherer" should be revised to read "Gatherer Hunter". (an example of the subtle yet powerful ways our thinking is twisted around and controled)

transmitable and otherwise major diseases such as Cancer or Diabetes did not appear until Agriculture, when our diet changed from being comprised of thousands of kinds of raw plants to a handful of kinds of cooked plants and animal protein.

we think of our ancestors as these brutish, violent half apes (opening scene of 2001 comes to mind), but this image is completely out-dated and disproven by recent study (1970s - present).

and this next one is the most significan: the fact that humans lived for 4 MILLION years with the same upper-cranial development, which is to say, intellegence, yet there was ZERO advancement in technology. for those 4 million years, there were no weapons such as arrow-heads invented, no plows or shovels to do work, and no written language. And the reasons for this leads to fascinating conjecture and theories.

although it might require more of a leap of the imagination than some would prefer, but it is not difficult to follow this logical train of thought to an image of a very egalitarian, peaceful, non-heirarchical society, one in which people spent most of their time relaxing and playing games, enjoying unimaginable perfect health (some have even made the conjecture that their life-span was much much longer than ours - maybe 300 years or more), with no division of labor, no leaders, no borders and boundaries (certainly no either/or thinking).

a garden of Eden type scenario I suppose. and in all creation myths of all cultures, India, China, African, Egyptian, Greek, Hawaii, Aztec, Mayan, Australia, etc, etc., there are very very similar accounts of a "dream time" or "garden" which predates the fall from grace (civilization).

and ofcourse there are many conjectures about what caused "the fall" (other than the account of Mark E Smith having gone to see the Pistols play in Manchester ) -- some involve population rise and the dwindling of natural resources, some involve environmental changes, etc, etc.

so this is a very brief account of the story of humanity that I have grown more and more fond of, and makes more and more sense the more research I do and the more I think about it, in direct opposition of everything I have been taught before.

whether you believe this stuff or not, I think these ideas should be taken into account, with how ever many grains of salt you feel necessary.

 

[DJ PIMP]

Yes you're right. But a whole formed by two parts is not a particular christian, or even western, thought. Taoism being the most obvious example, but I'm pretty sure there's more... My point was more how that dualism developed in the first place, and that, I think, is through thinking-in-opposites.

Dualism is pretty universal as far as I can see but the conclusions that are drawn from it are not. Taoism doesn't appear to make the same distinctions as Christianity (is interpreted to make) - often its imagery is literally fluid, and so contiguous.

I was offering another example of how dualism could evolve that didn't involve opposites. I'm guessing it would be hard to create opposites without language. We need symbols to define static concepts that can be contrast against one another... Otherwise the experience of say, night and day, is part of a process that cannot be fully seperated into components.

Is it weird how several people in this thread have the idea that the world is fucked? It all seems pretty normal to me - I can't recall it ever being any different. Fucked-up would be if global peace broke out and everyone went to a snuggly bed with a full tummy and nobody had hiccups.

 

[dominic]

civilization (language, agriculture, heirarchy, power) has been around 5,000 years while humans (Homo-Sapien AND Homo-Erectus, which we now know has the same brain capacity as Sapien) have been on earth for more than 4 million years. so civilzation is like a new hat we are trying on for a day to see if we like it . . . .

and this next one is the most significan: the fact that humans lived for 4 MILLION years with the same upper-cranial development, which is to say, intellegence, yet there was ZERO advancement in technology. for those 4 million years, there were no weapons such as arrow-heads invented, no plows or shovels to do work, and no written language. And the reasons for this leads to fascinating conjecture and theories.

although it might require more of a leap of the imagination than some would prefer, but it is not difficult to follow this logical train of thought to an image of a very egalitarian, peaceful, non-heirarchical society, one in which people spent most of their time relaxing and playing games, enjoying unimaginable perfect health (some have even made the conjecture that their life-span was much much longer than ours - maybe 300 years or more), with no division of labor, no leaders, no borders and boundaries (certainly no either/or thinking).

a garden of Eden type scenario I suppose. and in all creation myths of all cultures, India, China, African, Egyptian, Greek, Hawaii, Aztec, Mayan, Australia, etc, etc., there are very very similar accounts of a "dream time" or "garden" which predates the fall from grace (civilization).

kinda sounds like rousseau

however, the only way you eliminate the either/or is if indeed "people spent most of their time relaxing and playing games, enjoying unimaginable perfect health, with no division of labor, no leaders, no borders and boundaries . . . . "

-- of course this merely raises the question of the city of pigs -- EITHER live like pigs OR deal with the divisions and pain of civilization

i happen to spend most of my time relaxing and playing games -- but it's certainly part of an either/or proposition, and a (sloppily made, fallen-into-a-rut-like) decision for which i will pay a price

EITHER be serious about something OR spend most of my time relaxing and playing games

(of course i have some underlying faith in the "modular," cat-with-nine-lives view of modern living, such that even if i fuck up my current opportunities by not pursuing them with any degree of vigor, i can always go back to school to do something else -- b/c i think i'm a cat who's only on his 4th or 5th life, i don't really take my current situation all that seriously -- or perhaps i simply don't take life seriously -- who knows -- but it's still an either/or -- i.e., take yourself seriously OR wait tables and generally fuck about)

 

[hamarplazt]

one of the most important things this research and data does is put things into perspective in the bigger picture: civilization (language, agriculture, heirarchy, power) has been around 5,000 years while humans (Homo-Sapien AND Homo-Erectus, which we now know has the same brain capacity as Sapien) have been on earth for more than 4 million years. so civilzation is like a new hat we are trying on for a day to see if we like it.

Completely agree. We've got amazing powers, but the way we use those powers are still conditioned by the instincts developed during those 4 million years. Back then, you had to eat as much as possible whenever possible to stay alive, and therefore, today, we eat as much as possible even though there's far too much food around for that strategy to be healthy, etc.

As for the rest of your claims, it's certainly not something "archaeologists world wide has come to agree on". The garden of eden scenario indeed takes a lot more than a leap of the imagination, it takes a leap of faith.

 

[hamarplazt]

Is it weird how several people in this thread have the idea that the world is fucked? It all seems pretty normal to me - I can't recall it ever being any different. Fucked-up would be if global peace broke out and everyone went to a snuggly bed with a full tummy and nobody had hiccups.

Ha ha, yeah, good point. Maybe that's what I've been trying to say all along; the fucked up-ness is actually the way things are. Depends on how you define fucked up, though. Does something have to be unusual to be fucked up?

 

[zhao]

Is it weird how several people in this thread have the idea that the world is fucked? It all seems pretty normal to me - I can't recall it ever being any different. Fucked-up would be if global peace broke out and everyone went to a snuggly bed with a full tummy and nobody had hiccups.

gold fish have something like 12 seconds of memory. so that when they swim to this side of the tank, they have completely forgotten what the other side is like. and a friend of mine was saying it's weird that when she is a little depressed, it's hard to remember what it was like to be happy.

I think in many ways the world has gone horribly, horribly wrong. I don't think what happened in Rowanda in 1994 was "normal". nor what happened in Armenia in 1915, China in the 1960s, Russia in the 1910s and 20s, etc, etc, etc. I don't think losing 2 hours of your life on the freeway on your way to work every day is normal (here in LA it is).

in the past 100 years humans have damaged our own habitat more than the previous 4 million years combined. even the fucking neo-cons and G.W.B. have admited that the environment is a serious problem.

the sentiments expressed by Bleep are held by many, probably most: it is understandable, after all, the most distant past in our collective memory is what? the middle ages? and we point to that and say, look, the world is improving because we now have anti-biotics and customized ring-tones.

even within the the civilized period (past 5,000 years) which may be an inconceivably drastic decline in itself, most ancient cultures, Hinduism, Sufism, etc, etc, maintain that the heights of human knowledge and learning to have been reached a long, long time ago, and that we are still groping around in the dark, that this current time is a continuation of the dark ages.

consider a simple, factual thing of libraries. (this is all very very rough figures because, like the goldfish, I can't remember) the biggest library in the world right now is something like 1/20th the size of one that was destroyed in 1912, and that one was 1/80th the size of one that was destroyed in 1840s, and that one was 1/200th the size that was destroyed in 1600s, etc, etc. a friend of mine is a Muslim scholar and he tells me of ancient Islamic linguists (1st Century BC? again I can't remember) which put Witgenstein, Sausure, and Derrida to shame.

... fuck I need to go to sleep...

 

[DJ PIMP]

I'm just really fatalistic and conflicted about it all. I figure that the world keeps turning and we don't know whats coming tomorrow - so if there has to be some kind of global environmental meltdown before we wake up, then so be it. But at the same time people have been proclaiming the impending demise of society or the environment since forever... and it hasn't happened. Or if it did happen then it all came back again a different way.

Really, I figure its just like Buddha said... that in all our lifetimes we've cried enough tears to fill all the oceans in this world. And thats over a timeframe that surpasses the life of this planet, solar system, galaxy etc. Worlds apon worlds apon worlds that we've watched come and go.

So I just don't stress about it any more.

Have you seen the movie I Heart Huckabees? Thats the great message in the poem that Alfred reads at the start:

Nobody sits like this rock sits.
You rock, rock.
The rock just sits and is.
You show us how to just sit here,
and that's what we really need.

Thinking you can fix the world can lead to as many problems as the people out there fucking it up through greed or ignorance... unless you're acting with a pure heart, and I'm no Mother Fuckin' Teresa.

It is what it is.

 

[D84]

Yeah, bleep, the world is what it is and there's heaps of beauty and love if you look for it, but it is also fucked in so many ways: and that crap is also normal and natural, if you define nature as whatever happens in the world etc is "natural".

But it doesn't have to be like that. A kid could grow up all his or her life being beaten up by his/her parents: that will be normal/usual for this person but there is a better way.

I don't even think I'm optimistic or pessimistic by saying this: it seems like common sense to me.

 

[DJ PIMP]

Maybe the beat-up kid grows up and uses that experience as motivation, vowing to help others or to try and reach people by expressing themselves through art. Bearing in mind there is no other way they could develop that exact understanding or compassion, were the beatings a "bad" thing?

We could walk around being nice and sympathetic all the time, but that isn't necessarily what helps people... sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind - that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger etc. If life were not a mortal struggle we would have little motivation to better ourselves or learn. So theres only one thing I can say with conviction to be good, and that is enduring suffering.

For me this is one big-ass either/or versus plus/and. Do we divide the world into good (the world is great!) or bad (the world is fucked!), or accept the whole enchilada? Personally I need to do both, accept it as is and act according to my inner voice in a way that I believe is compassionate.

So don't mistake what I've written as meaning that I don't care, its more that I sometimes like to think the people who have at times made my life difficult have been those who cared the most. Often they were oblivious to the generousity of their cruelty - they didn't seem to realise how much they were giving me to work with. Total saints

 

[DJ PIMP]

I have summed up my feelings on non-duality in poster form (which I gave to my niece for her 8th birthday):

A larger 333KB PNG

 

[zhao]

wow that's really nice. do you do illustrations much?

 

[dHarry]

and this next one is the most significan: the fact that humans lived for 4 MILLION years with the same upper-cranial development, which is to say, intellegence, yet there was ZERO advancement in technology. for those 4 million years, there were no weapons such as arrow-heads invented, no plows or shovels to do work, and no written language. And the reasons for this leads to fascinating conjecture and theories.

although it might require more of a leap of the imagination than some would prefer, but it is not difficult to follow this logical train of thought to an image of a very egalitarian, peaceful, non-heirarchical society, one in which people spent most of their time relaxing and playing games, enjoying unimaginable perfect health (some have even made the conjecture that their life-span was much much longer than ours - maybe 300 years or more), with no division of labor, no leaders, no borders and boundaries (certainly no either/or thinking).

I was wondering if there was any reason to think that this stage of development was so peaceful and idyllic, no division of labour, no leaders? I know apes spend a lot of their time lazing about, grooming, etc, but also fighting for dominance, organising hunts, etc - and there are always hierarchies. But of course it's possible that intelligent pre-agrarian humans dispensed with some of the politics and strife. I'd guess that the "unimaginable perfect health" is the most likely part of that - after all, most surviving animals (bar homo sapien) have perfect health - those that don't die off, those that do eat and exercise exactly as their bodies require, as they evolved.

 

[zhao]

I was wondering if there was any reason to think that this stage of development was so peaceful and idyllic, no division of labour, no leaders? I know apes spend a lot of their time lazing about, grooming, etc, but also fighting for dominance, organising hunts, etc - and there are always hierarchies. But of course it's possible that intelligent pre-agrarian humans dispensed with some of the politics and strife. I'd guess that the "unimaginable perfect health" is the most likely part of that - after all, most surviving animals (bar homo sapien) have perfect health - those that don't die off, those that do eat and exercise exactly as their bodies require, as they evolved.

yes there are reasons to think "that this stage of development was so peaceful and idyllic, no division of labour, no leaders". sociological studies of current day primitive tribes in Indonesia, Africa, etc, archaeological analysis (date of oldest tool or weapon, for instance), not to mention myths from every culture on earth, all point to this.

about health... shit I gots to bounce. be back later...