I highly recommend that you consult a lichenologist (just don't mention the reindeer)
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Freedom & Modern Systems of Control
- Thread starter northape
- Start date
- Status
The idea that plants and fungi are outside of the realm of competition for resources is definitely an oversimplification. Plants use chemical warfare for instance.
The claim was about "consuming other living things to survive".
Fair enough…but thenI don’t necessarily see the relevance of that distinction in relation to this discussion.
If your neighbour poisoned you, so they could eat your food…is that all that different morally compared to them eating you?
Why?
I don’t see many examples of symbiosis in nature that is entirely devoid of other examples of exclusion.
If your neighbour poisoned you, so they could eat your food…is that all that different morally compared to them eating you?
Why?
I don’t see many examples of symbiosis in nature that is entirely devoid of other examples of exclusion.
I agree with you Jamie. All I'm saying here is that competition, domination, and violence is just one aspect of nature, humanity, and life. But not the whole thing, and doesn't define it.
For every example of violence and competition you can find, another of collaboration can be presented. There may not be that many cases of full symbiosis, but there are many of interdependence, social collaboration, and even full integration (our own cells descend from beings that used to be independent).
Thus I find no evidence to support the idea that everything is based in competition, violence, and domination, and that those are the only options. That claim is as overly simplistic at it would be to deny the presence of those aspects. That's probably why few people would claim anything like that.
I've been trying to understand what are the arguments or evidence supporting such absolute and (to me) one-sided statements, but I haven't been presented with any so far. The ones that have been put forward have been only about the fact that there's competition, violence, etc., but no one has denied that.
For every example of violence and competition you can find, another of collaboration can be presented. There may not be that many cases of full symbiosis, but there are many of interdependence, social collaboration, and even full integration (our own cells descend from beings that used to be independent).
Thus I find no evidence to support the idea that everything is based in competition, violence, and domination, and that those are the only options. That claim is as overly simplistic at it would be to deny the presence of those aspects. That's probably why few people would claim anything like that.
I've been trying to understand what are the arguments or evidence supporting such absolute and (to me) one-sided statements, but I haven't been presented with any so far. The ones that have been put forward have been only about the fact that there's competition, violence, etc., but no one has denied that.
Ya I don’t have answers. Our realm is not one of absolutes.
Friends. I am not talking about human potential. All the good stuff mentioned here is possible
I'm describing a perspective on past and current humanity (and the animal, plant, fungai kingoms) as it presents itself.
Blig, please bullet point whatever I'm not addressing, I'll do my best to answer. I'm not intentionally disregarding.
I've been all over the world. To the grotty slums where you could be stabbed for your watch, all the way through until you reach the remote places where you could sleep safely on a pile of gold if you wanted to.
The bottom line for me. Unless you are capable of violence and make a choice to be peaceful... you're not really peaceful. You're just lucky that your circumstance allows it. Somebody else is defending you from violence.
Maybe tomorrow will be brighter for everyone. But that is how today and yesterday look to me.
I'm describing a perspective on past and current humanity (and the animal, plant, fungai kingoms) as it presents itself.
Blig, please bullet point whatever I'm not addressing, I'll do my best to answer. I'm not intentionally disregarding.
I've been all over the world. To the grotty slums where you could be stabbed for your watch, all the way through until you reach the remote places where you could sleep safely on a pile of gold if you wanted to.
The bottom line for me. Unless you are capable of violence and make a choice to be peaceful... you're not really peaceful. You're just lucky that your circumstance allows it. Somebody else is defending you from violence.
Maybe tomorrow will be brighter for everyone. But that is how today and yesterday look to me.
I do agree with this. Calling a rock peaceful makes little sense, and same goes for someone in a comma. That's the point: there's choice.
That's the crux of the disagreement, and why I made the point of bullies. I'll mention it again, please address it: the fact that some people are bullies that behave aggressively towards others while some people aren't proves that it's not true that people only refuse violence when someone defends them. It's not because it's not possible to be a bully: it is, some people do choose to attack and harass others. Most people don't. And the reason they are not is not that others are bullies in their behalf. Bullies do tend to believe that they will be victims if they don't victimize others, but (out of very specific environments) that's fear and delusion. Most people are neither bullies nor victims.
Now, if you're talking about war, that's a different situation. There's a zero sum game going on where every state does to the population of others whatever they can get away with. I agree with you on this. But I don't agree it's something inherent to humanity. That's why I made the point that such widespread, large-scale violence is a relatively recent situation in the existence of human beings. It appeared at one point, and thus can come to an end, at least in theory. Now, you may say that no, this has always been the case: fine, but then you need to support it with evidence, because we would be talking about facts. But I do agree with your point on war if it's about the present or the last few millennia (although only for part of humanity in the latter).
To say that most people are peaceful by default seems off to me. None of us have ever lived in a world without the structure allowing helpless people to survive.
The structure also deters the bullies due to the consequences of law.
The rest of the natural world behaves differently. This is why some plants have thorns, why some animals have venom, why certain mushrooms can control the brain of an insect for the own means. This why you either have sharp teeth or you can run fast or you are camouflaged, etc.
This is why you make stone dwellings and develop complex weapons.
Peace is a luxury earned by being capable of violence.
I cannot provide evidence of how humans behaved 200,000 years ago. Due to how nature behaves, I can predict for myself how it might have been.
Every piece of evidence, from pond water under a microscope all the way to black holes devouring star systems without remorse, suggests to me that helplessness is not a good survival trait.
The structure also deters the bullies due to the consequences of law.
The rest of the natural world behaves differently. This is why some plants have thorns, why some animals have venom, why certain mushrooms can control the brain of an insect for the own means. This why you either have sharp teeth or you can run fast or you are camouflaged, etc.
This is why you make stone dwellings and develop complex weapons.
Peace is a luxury earned by being capable of violence.
I cannot provide evidence of how humans behaved 200,000 years ago. Due to how nature behaves, I can predict for myself how it might have been.
Every piece of evidence, from pond water under a microscope all the way to black holes devouring star systems without remorse, suggests to me that helplessness is not a good survival trait.
I said that most choose to, I didn't say that it's a default. But suppose just a few did: that still disproves your argument that choosing to not attack others is only possible when others do it in your behalf. There is a choice to not attack others, and people do choose it. Not everyone, not always. Both choices exist and both are sometimes made.
This is true, but deterrence is not impossibility. And many still choose to be bullies, many get away with it. Even more people don't choose it when they could get away with it. One has many occasions of being aggressive, abusive, and domineering daily. Most of the time, doing that isn't even considered to be on the table, and not because it's impossible or because of the consequences. Usually only when there is conflict is the option of aggression considered. In those cases, it's sometimes taken and sometimes not.
This is something that has been and is being a topic of research. I invite you to read about it and see how your predictions hold against the evidence. Based on what you have been saying, you will likely be surprised. I can point you to some books if you want to. To hold such strong beliefs about humanity without evidence is not a good idea.
Are you willing to agree that both in humans and in nature there is both struggle and cooperation? At different degrees for different situations, moments, species, and individuals, of course.
If so, we can leave it at that. It's understandable to focus more on one pole or the other depending on many factors. The point is to not become fixated on one to the point of forgetting about the other.
If so, we can leave it at that. It's understandable to focus more on one pole or the other depending on many factors. The point is to not become fixated on one to the point of forgetting about the other.
Sure, if you think it is relevant. Perhaps that is why you think I've disregarded points. I dont see how it makes any difference. To me it feels like saying red is not red because blue is also a colour.
The situation, then, seems to be as follows:
- I think what you're saying is that humanity and nature is completely based on aggression, and the only cases where there's no aggression is when either one's too weak for it (doesn't have that choice) or there are others performing aggression on our behalf. I can't see how you could be saying anything else, and I disagree. But, somehow, that's not what you're saying. You're just choosing to reflect on that side.
- You think what I'm saying is that peacefulness is the default and violence is rare and always opt-in, that one always can and should choose peacefulness. You can't see how I could be saying something else, and you disagree. But, somehow, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just trying to point out that both aspects are always present, and that there are reasons why peace is chosen other than weakness or because other is being violent in our behalf.
If this is the case, I don't understand how it has come to be, and how it can be possible to have a symmetrical misunderstanding after so many posts. I've read what you said carefully and I've explained myself multiple times, clarifying every time I could see something being misinterpreted. I imagine your experience may be very similar too, from your perspective.
I can't deny it's kind of funny.
It's true that the worldly or universal reality is not a comfy fluffy candy existence. It's true that we have been accustomed to that kind of existence in today's world, at least the "lucky" ones among us. It's true that there is wisdom in harmonizing with the law of nature/universe, of being strong - exercising, staying sharp mentally, bodily, spiritually, socially.
What about the promises of the "new age" where humanity would be one and love would rule? Is it total BS? Admittedly, I am a fan of Charles Eisenstein. While I think he may not have his feet very firmly on the ground, I think he doesn't have to, and he is at least pointing at something real.
We cannot extinguish evil, darkness, or suffering from the world, and hopefully as we all know, such attempts lead to higher levels of evil, darkness, and suffering. But it seems to me that the world is actually ruled by evil at this time, and that this is not the only possibility. I want to believe that the tide is turning and a better general state of humanity is roughly around the corner. Actual unity may look more similar to tribalism, people unifying in small populations, and operating in the global realm from there.
Nature is not dog eat dog. It is what it is and doesn't need to fit into our cultural projections. The leopard having mercy on the baby of the monkey it killed is real. We can go into it, it's a huge world of examples of empathy and compassion in many different dimensions.
I find seeing the universe, the world, nature, humanity all as sacred to be very constructive.
What about the promises of the "new age" where humanity would be one and love would rule? Is it total BS? Admittedly, I am a fan of Charles Eisenstein. While I think he may not have his feet very firmly on the ground, I think he doesn't have to, and he is at least pointing at something real.
We cannot extinguish evil, darkness, or suffering from the world, and hopefully as we all know, such attempts lead to higher levels of evil, darkness, and suffering. But it seems to me that the world is actually ruled by evil at this time, and that this is not the only possibility. I want to believe that the tide is turning and a better general state of humanity is roughly around the corner. Actual unity may look more similar to tribalism, people unifying in small populations, and operating in the global realm from there.
Nature is not dog eat dog. It is what it is and doesn't need to fit into our cultural projections. The leopard having mercy on the baby of the monkey it killed is real. We can go into it, it's a huge world of examples of empathy and compassion in many different dimensions.
I find seeing the universe, the world, nature, humanity all as sacred to be very constructive.
I understand @fink's view, but I won't live in such a world. Life without love at the center of it has no meaning for me.
@dithyramb's picture is closer to my reality. I believe that life is infinitely complex, beyond our comprehension. Better hold tight and do your best.
If the transition period is upon us, we're the change. Like they sing in a medicine song: We're the ones we've been waiting for.
@dithyramb's picture is closer to my reality. I believe that life is infinitely complex, beyond our comprehension. Better hold tight and do your best.
If the transition period is upon us, we're the change. Like they sing in a medicine song: We're the ones we've been waiting for.
And tying this to the topic of the thread - the habit of comfort is what breeds control systems, or rather, control systems lure people into comfort and it's perhaps a feedback loop and snowball effect. This is nothing separate from plain domestication. I agree with John Zerzan that civilization seems to be foremost a domestication of humans in an ever accelerated rate as the progression continues. But once again, I believe that it doesn't need to be this way. I have a very wild spirit ingrained in my genes, partly due to my father's lineage which used to be nomadic pastoralists until quite recently. My father became a professor, a scientist, and it is a miraculous anomaly. That anomaly spawned me, a being who doesn't exactly fit in anywhere, but is connected to modern civilization and feeling like I have to live in wild ways at the same time. There are lots of people who feel and answer the call to live closer to nature and in more natural ways. For a lot of people, the smart thing to do is to migrate out of cities.
Honestly, you are a hard one to get. I feel your vibe more than I understand it.
It feels that you're coming from a good-hearted standpoint, but your reasoning about aggression is difficult to comprehend.
Somehow, you created a system inside where there is some resolve and balance, but I need your life experience to get it, most likely.
Perhaps the leopard is smart enough to know that it will be a bigger monkey one day, maybe making, or helping to make, a few more monkeys on the way.
You could interpret it that way, but love is a mystical phenomenon that serves the whole anyways. Also, a baby monkey without a mother actually has no chance of surviving, and in the documentary it dies. Finally, love in mammals, and especially felines is something I personally recognize very well. It's a pure emotion. Like I said, we can go into the phenomena of love and care in nature. How about different species suckling each other?
- Status
Similar threads
