Well done, Thought. Perhaps my favorite post of yours to date. Once again I find I cannot quite yet leave. One last shot!
So yes, "Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!," but when used properly, that is the same as yelling "Teach! Teach! Teach! Teach!" (not that I am specifically "teaching" Lord J, or anyone else, anything. Rather, the conflict itself hopefully instructs).
If you go back in time and read my earlier debates on the Compendium, you will be able to chart the course of my intellectual progression over several years. Here in this place—and elsewhere, of course—I’ve had plenty of good practice to hone my ideas, encounter new ones, and generally strengthen my philosophy.
I don’t often admit it, and perhaps even less do I
show it, but the educational value is the top reason I’ve ever debated here. Perhaps someday I will be able to use these arguments in a more mature form, on a more serious platform, and to thank for my abilities will I have experiences like this.
However, and however unlikely it may seem to you, I don’t prefer debates. I don’t like that style of engagement. I prefer questions. This “pure interest” stuff of yours is much more fascinating, personally.
After all, historically gold has had a high value but it is was also a rather unimportant commodity for much of that time, given its poor practical implementations (it is only in the modern era when gold's electrical conductivity is so coveted that I'd say it has become actually important).
Gold goes back pretty far. You should go into my other thread and see Episode 2 of
Connections, which begins with the ancient discovery of a rock that indicates the purity of gold by a scratch test.
(Unless, of course, by “modern era” you were referring to all of recorded human history…)
The intellectual manipulation known as bargaining (and with it economics) would only come into being once humans developed civilization, since it was from the manual manipulation of tangible things that all intellectual manipulation followed, and in our story these humans aren’t to that point in history yet.
An interesting concept; not that bartering is dependent on "Civilization" (the way most people understand the word, bartering it not so limited). Rather, it is interesting in the claim action has to predate conception. Generally, I'd argue the opposite; that the idea has to predate the implementation. Anywho, for this specific case I am curious then as to if you'd classify bonobos as having a civilization (as they have bartering)? (just perform a quick word search for "barter" in that artical to find specifically what I mean).
After years of consideration, I don’t think I accept as legitimate the popular, chicken-egg dilemma of conceptualization versus action. Action came first, not sentient thought. Humans had a full set of motivations for their actions long before they achieved consciousness: These motivations were instinctual—and what wasn’t done by instinct, was done by the example of older humans, all the way back in time, beyond humans, to the earliest animal behaviors. Conditioning and instinct…all the building blocks an animal needs to thrive.
As sentient thought came into the human world, then conceptualization began, because every one of our sentient thoughts is mediated by the
concept, as the will which considers them is itself no less an abstraction; therefore the two are inseparable. Therefore, actions with a
conscious motivation must indeed be preceded by at least some degree of conceptualization. Clear?
And bonobos…I admit ignorance. Not just with bonobos in particular; I have judged myself over the years to be as-yet unqualified to make interpretations as to the degree of sentience possessed by some of the other animal species on this planet, such as grey parrots, dolphins, ravens, and several primates. There is simply too much interesting information about them that I do not yet know, and the boundary between sentience and none is an amorphous, large area.
However, I
can tell you my definition for civilization: When I use that word, I almost always use it intentionally to describe something that perhaps would better be represented by “Civilization,” with a capital C.
You live in a home of some kind, yes? This residence has a name—certainly a numerical address, and perhaps even a name of affection (or disdain). This residence sits on a street, also named, in a named city, in a named geographic territory, in a named political entity, on a named planet, in a named galaxy. There is one important division, however, that we missed! Specifically this is the division between the purposefully manipulated world and the “wild.” Civilization is what I use to classify that distinction, and the “Wild” might also have a capital letter if I were being consistent.
If bonobos are manipulating the world
purposefully—and I don’t mean
intelligently; all of the higher animals have a considerable intelligence; rather, if they are thinking conceptually, abstractly, in determining their actions—then their societies too are a part of “Civilization,” even if theirs does not interact with ours.
Now, the reason that I said manual (i.e., hand-based) manipulation must precede intellectual manipulation (i.e., meta-engagement), is simply because of one small fact that my knowledge of history has enabled me to grasp: Every device and behavior in humanity that serves a conscious purpose, became possible from our solutions to less complicated problems. Simple, yes? I can’t think of a single piece of technology in our world today that does not derive from the inventions of the most primitive tools for the simplest of reasons, ages ago.
Perhaps, that is really the problem of any belief system (we do a disservice to ourselves if we limit it to religion). Though he is religious, I do hope you might agree with C.S. Lewis when he stated:
The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There's not one of them which won't make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide.
I’m not sure that I do agree with him. You have to understand that I don’t consider him the luminary others think him to be. Tolkien was much better of their little group, and even he had a limited worldview.
As an alternative, I might prefer the Kant that I quoted to Krispin not long ago: the categorical imperative. I am a firm proponent of people making sound judgments, and then respecting their commitment to those positions.
Ah, religion! Bane of progress!
Ah, but progress for progress stake should well be avoided. Let progress be intentional, well reasoned, and deemed good. Let us move forward, certainly, but let us also watch where we put our feet.
True enough, but it doesn’t change my original remark. =)
Females made to answer to males? Poor form.
This sexist abuse really is more common in the world—and in our own nation—than you give it credit for. I stand by my remark.
As a bit of a side issue side issue, I personally find modern perceptions of beauty to be one of the very factors that limits women. I generally maintain that all women are beautiful (and I suspect all humans are beautiful, but I am too limited in myself to rightly view such); if at any given time we, as observers, see a woman who we would not classify as beautiful, the fault lies with us the observer, not that which is observed.
Yet modern society wrongly places the responsibility on the subject, not the observer. Essentially, to offer an analogy (as I so do love analogies), society is insisting that the text is made bigger (no pun intended) so that we can see it, rather than insisting that we correct our vision to see in the first place.
You didn’t describe it very well, but I see what you are saying—because I identify this phase in my feminist ideology: After winning the right to self-determination in such matters as movement, clothing, and economy, females found themselves back on the world scene—a scene still controlled entirely by males, mind you—and therefore necessarily entered into an age of sexual objectification. The baring of the female form, and the constant judging of females by their sexual appeal as defined by the prevailing majority opinion, however demeaning, is the inevitable mark of
progress toward sexual equality. Eventually, slowly, the sexual taboos and repressions will fade with repeated exposure, and society will normalize. Integration will become smoother.
The key to it is recording our progress in the form of progressive laws that help new people—children—grow up with an appropriate mindset and maturity. Humans can be trained into almost any idea base, and so let’s train them into something wiser than we are doing today.
I claim there is a difference between men and women partially because there is no way either can be replaced; each brings something different but something valuable, important, and critical to the table.
You mean they are both required for the species to continue to exist. This is in contrast to nearly all other classifications of humanity.
A forceful and valid point, but also a primitive one. In modern times we need to add something to the sentence: “…required for the species to exist
to our satisfaction.” Where would be if all of the nonreligious were killed off? All of the aerospace engineers? All of the violinmakers? These groups are not biologically fundamental but they are
sociologically fundamental, and thus the practical effect is that they are as “important” in bringing their bit “to the table” as are females and males. Do you see my point?
Thus, by insisting upon placing precedence on the biological distinction of sex, you are taking a rather primitive view of the world as it exists today. Worry not, Thought, neither females nor males are going to go away anytime soon. Goodness knows that, if it were possible, males would have exterminated females long ago. Thankfully, genetics occasionally does trump idiocy.
If you ask me to play Thomas Moore and construct a Utopia, I'd propose some form of a diarchy. To relate it to a modern social structure, I think by far the best president the United States could have is that the single office should be occupied by a man and a woman (and I'd extend that to all areas of society where decision making is important, and possibly in other areas as well but on more of an ad hoc basis).
I have used this theme in my writing. I have a story where the great land of the world is anchored by an imperial seat, and the imperatorial power is shared by two mates—husband and wife in this case—as though they were, together, a single entity.
I say this merely to point out that I am sympathetic to your position. It is a much more sophisticated version of the sex quota we often see in hiring and representation. (Examples: “Fifteen percent or more of employees must be female”; “Fifty percent of delegates to the state convention must be female”; etc.)
If it is eventually discovered, conclusively, that there is a clear benefit to splitting decision-making between the sexes equally, then I might support sex quotas or your so-called “diarchy.” However, that information does not yet exist, I for one have serious doubts about it, and so for the time being I reject your premise and prefer to let people win on the merits—with, of course, legal protections in place to prevent or punish sexist discrimination.
A very minor point, one that I am almost reluctant to state given that I'd prefer at this point to exchange ideas than debate, but the Inquisition was not unique to religion. It had a different name, true enough, but you can find inquisitions aplenty in the 20th century outside of religious contexts.
True enough. However, the engine of the capitalized Inquisition was, of course, religiosity. The various “inquisitions” of history are not interchangeable; they all occurred under very specific circumstances, and each must be judged as separate events even if we do group them, like you do, under a single word.
My question had nothing to do with religion, with good, bad, or evil. It had to do with understanding somebody. The importance of it wasn't in the answer, but in giving the answer, in increasing understanding of the other.
I see.
But I think you might find a deeper theme in this. I suspect that, upon closer inspection of my various posts, you'll find I often argue for more time, for us to be slow (but not too slow) in what we do, rather than hasty. Indeed, it is largely for this reason that I would probably be classified on the conservative side of the spectrum…
The plea for more time is also one to which I am sympathetic, and, unlike your proposal of a sexual diarchy, it makes a lot of sense to me.
However, I do formulate your passion a little bit differently for myself: For me, the
speed of progress is not what is dangerous, but rather the
agency of it is what brings us such high risk. Moneygrubbing, shortsighted companies, and religious fundamentalists in all sectors have set a tone of progress in this country that I doubt
anybody would appreciate if they truly understood it.
Indeed, it is largely for this reason that I would probably be classified on the conservative side of the spectrum (I would agree, but it is improper for one to classify one’s self).
Do you really think so? Given a cogent, aware, objective person, do you really think there is anybody in the world better suited to know that person than they know themselves?
Outside perspective is important, Thought—indispensable, even—but inner assessment…I think that trumps everything.
I do not want to throw away old customs too easily or adopt new ones too quickly, but everything in the fullness of time.
Ah, but you see…that is not within our power as individuals. To control that would require the end of human individuality, and a presiding overmind to set the pace of all things. We can only study history and observe the world around us, and determine for ourselves which customs we ourselves wish to honor, in our own way, for our own reasons.
(Or we can take it easy and bow to the prevailing customs of the day; change is better than the traditionalists give it credit for! (And I say that even with much personal dismay over how much we have indeed lost even in the past fifty years.))
No, I am waiting for Europe to fail so I can complete its history.
For a minute you sounded like me. How absolutely elitist of you!
Ranking systems are meaningless without context (and if we have the context, we don't really need ranking except as, say, an alternative to ordering things alphabetically).
I’d like to talk about this more, but then I would have to think about it first, and time does not permit. Suffice it to say that the essential use of ranking, which no other method can provide, goes back to prehistory itself. Ranking is merely a formalized institution of judging value. When you’re picking onions or melons at the store, don’t you “rank” them to yourself? Don’t you feel through several of them, or look for the prettiest ones, or check for defects, or use whatever other ranking rubric is relevant to you? Or do you just throw into your cart the first ones you can reach?
As it goes with melons, so it goes with everything.
I am afraid it is not by emotional appeals but by logic that I can be persuaded.
Quite fair. I didn’t expect to succeed in getting through to you, and I don’t think any less of you for declining.
Nevertheless, I have to stand by my earlier remarks as well. Your grasp of logic, at least as your previously presented it, narrowly on that particular topic, is puerile. I cannot engage with it without resorting to base condescension.
I did try.
Now... an emotional appeal from Krispin, BZ, or RD might give me greater pause (please do not take this as an insult; I follow their reasoning much more easily than yours, so that I trust their reasoning more than yours may merely say something about the manner and clarity with which they present it).
Ah! I consider that the best compliment you have ever given me. It is not surprising that you have a hard time understanding me above all others. Do you know how many people simply would not have even bothered to read my insights, let alone attempt to understand them?
Thank you.
The way forward, from this perspective, is utterly unknown. To take a step forward and off the road might be to take a step towards great things, or it may be to step off a cliff. I claim that logic has led me to this point, and if to this point, then further still is mandated by the journey itself. So I am quite willing to take that step, to leave the road of logic once it has served its purpose. It may be that on the other side of this mist the road will resume or it may be that on the other side of this mist I will plummet. But I am willing to continue in the direction that the road has led me, even if I must leave that road. After all, roads are fine tools, but they are no place to live. In turn I encourage you to take that step, to continue to where the road has only implied, to not be limited to such a dismal place as the road itself; do not sleep on the streets, as it were, when room and board may well be available for the asking. And if we die is such course of action, well then, “death will be an awfully big adventure.”
Or, to put it another way, maps say that here, there be dragons. Let's find out for sure.
Very well spoken. I am not sure you meant it, though. You are set, far more set than I would seem to be, and that troubles any such glorious vision of the future.
However, neither am I sure you do
not mean it.
I know which one I’ll be hoping for. =)
While certainly not a deal-breaker, I would strongly suggest any "thinker" to date and marry an individual of the opposite gender (... or not of the opposite gender, depending) who has studied a totally different field. It has made for much fascination. If you enjoy ideas, then this is the way to go.
The best remark you have made all day. Well put! And there is no substitute for experience, in this. Of all things, my significant other is into the field of…horses.
How educational that has been!
And likewise, we hope that you'll have a rewarding life and a thoughtful awakening to this religion business 
That you do not presently want such an "awakening," or even perceive such as anything that could be called "awakening"... well at least I do hope you can take it in the manner in which it was meant.
With any luck, we shall speak again sometime.
Now, as for the others in this topic who are loudly complaining that it is an affront to their precious sensibilities for debate here to have been drawn out as long as it has, consider this: By passing such absurd and plain stupid judgments, you yourselves are also being judged.
Children.
It may not mean anything to you, but it matters to the people who will interact with you in the course of your lives, or who will avoid interacting with you.
