What do you expect from a gaggle of hairless apes? Design though? Really? Hmm. Regardless, I think some can do so. (looking and accepting) Are you a sock puppet? If not, welcome to the fray. Otherwise... pardon.
Don't read too much into the word "design". Happenstance, accidental, the design still exists. Although nature itself is deliciously methodical. Sock Puppet? Suck Poppet? Pup Socket? Sup Pocket? A sock puppet is a thing one puts over the hand to cover it. I could take it off, and then you'd be taking to the hand.
The face paint seems oddly familiar. What is a self…in-deed……..but a self in need. Yes indeed, indeed. Plant a seed and watch it feed….and feed. Plant a word and find a creed …and feed... and lead..
You seem to have latched on to the theme of a designer. I use the term "design" loosely - it's more the result of evolution. Nature tends to favour that which has the best chance of success as an organism. "Social Darwinism" is a term which has risen to prominence lately. It is interesting to watch the cultural and social traits becoming more significant in the evolution of mankind than the physical. Nature, you see, favours the compliant human. An ant who follows his own path is often never seen in the nest again - and it is the nest which survives, not the ant. Sock Puppets. A sock puppet assumes that one has several identities, and that the identities beyond the first are used for a particular reason - whether to clarify, argue with, or draw attention to the first, or perhaps to allow the puppeteer to say that which he might not dare under his ... real... name. Every single pseudonym here conveys an impression the writer wishes others to have of them. Each one a careful construction. Each one a mirror held up to what we fear, admire or aspire to the most, in ourselves or in others. Thus, when that writer wishes to be more honest or perhaps display a different aspect of his personality, he willl generally use a sock puppet as the vehicle. His preferred identity (that which he most wants others to percieve him as) remains the same. That being the case, no... this is not a sock puppet. It's more a case of serial identities. I am not a consistent man, within myself. I am far too honest for that - not least with myself. I learn, and I evolve. Sometimes I devolve. Some of the "me's" which have gone before perhaps were more morally or philosophically admirable than this one. However, when experience throws light on the fallacy of the self, I find myself unable to remain true to it other than as a vehicle with which I ensure my own survival in the world outside. One cannot both remain consistent and aquire knowledge. The result will always have only two dimensions. Knowledge demands change. Self knowledge begets Koyaanisqatsi.
Nature favors the compliant human eh? That's interesting. Compliant to what? A study I saw on "leadership" or whatever examined how people reacted in dangerous situations. I can't remember the exact scenario(s). I only remember the result. 80% of the samples (I'm pretty sure they had multiple thousands of data points) basically panicked, but responded to people telling them what to do. 10% panicked to the point of freezing up, or taking action to harm themselves - and the other 10% took immediate action to save themselves and others. They were all focused up and kicking ass. From my own observation in life, this study seems to jive. What do you think? Regardless, I'm quite curious about this compliance thing. It can be viewed from so many angles. One idea that stands out to me is that this is a socially adapatable trait. For instance, were there less people or a greater perception of demand for non-compliance, do you think the humans involved would adjust to meed the perception? I tend to think they would indeed over the course of at least one generation, were the down-side of the non-compliance not a greater personal risk than compliance. Of course, that's a pretty far-fetched scenario. The percieved down-side will likely always outweigh compliance. Then we need a study on risk-taking, and to compare that to the type of compliance you're talking about. That's kind of the hanging question though isn't it? I mean really, couldn't you frame at least SOME aspect of the life of ANY human as "compliant"? And if so, doesn't that render the assertion somewhat uhm... well, slanted to the needlessly negative? BTW: Your take on the sock puppet thing is pretty fucking impressive to me. I don't see how you people do it. I have a hard enough time keeping track of me and about squat for capacity of being consciously manipulative (as in purposefully directing attention here and there, or related stuff). I like the element of mystery you provide. Haven't seen BOB in a long time though. Has he nothing to say? Busy complying is he?
An interesting study of the self. But you seem to be coming from the perspective that the self is somehow linked to its name, that word it commonly goes by. That the same name is there to ensure ourselves, and others, to view ourselves in continuity. I, on the other hand, keep the same name, but change avatars and titles.
it sounds almost like harlequin is not comfortable for other people to see that he has changed (grown), that he thinks to be seen as changing is to be seen as inconsistent?
this is interesting, but i see something in that which i am sure you would deny, so i feel i should ask you are willing and able to say more about this?
Why, compliance to the nest, of course. That nest might vary from group to group, by the underlying imperative remains the same. As far as evolution is concerned, humanity is more important than the human. I'm in the process of sorting my own thoughts into something more coherant than a nebulous idea at this stage. It's something which has been niggling at me for quite some time - the difference, if any, between social and "natural" evolution. I'm beginning to see social evolution as a kind of... refinement... for an already successful species. I also don't have the scientific knowledge to determine whether or not there is any difference between types of intelligence. I have long held the opinion that there is one, but I have no evidence to bear it out, other than theories such as those regarding left and right hemispherical function in the brain. Nature makes no conscious decisions where evolution is concerned. Improvement comes by mutation, by accident. I wonder if, in time, one of these hemispheres will become more dominant, and a particular type of intelligence will become more prominent, to the detriment of the other. An emotional human is one more easily controlled, even if unconsciously so, by the mass of humanity itself.
I don't think that the problem here is a "fallacy of the self" -- but the fallacy of *identification*. I don't really know how to tackle issues about the self; there are so many ways. But, issues of identification are much easier and much more productively to approach. We tend to identify with our states of mind (anger, joy, happiness, misery, nihilism, discordianism, etc.), with our past ("I am a victim of assault and rape", "I am someone who always got straight A's", "I am from a noble family" etc. ), with our future ("I am someone who will be happily married", "I am going to make a million dollars", "I am going to be unemployed and die a beggar" etc.), or with our surroundings ("I am in good company", "I am the only smart one in the midst of fools" etc.), or with ideas and philosophies ("I am a constructivist", "I am a positivist", "I am a rationalist", "I am an anarchist" etc.), or with our job ("I am architect", "I am a mathematician", "I am a cleaner", etc.) -- and so on. Whenever we adhere to an identification, we are adhering to a reductionism, and are thus effectively blinding ourselves to everything else, and we are also putting ourselves in a rut, that gets deeper and deeper with every new insistence on a particular identification -- and thus harder to get out of. This is how identification slows down or obstructs change. Be it for the better, or for worse.
Yes, that's almost exactly what I was saying. It is a pity that "the eyes of others" was discussed so long ago. Well spotted. No, I am not completely comfortable with that. The problem with that perception is that what most see as "growth" (or perhaps maturity is the word you were seeking?) I do not necessarily percieve in the same fashion, and I was seeking to avoid the issue for now as it would lead to tangents not entirely applicable here. Consistency might be percieved as an admirable thing, but when that consistency results from a self-image which is based on an incomplete analysis, then it is not necessarily so. A scientific theory only holds true while its precepts do. When further information as to those precepts comes to light, the theory might be proven false or misleading. Having said that, there is a core to me which remains unchanging, and therefore... ...no, on the contrary I would not deny it at all.
I intuitively sense that this society vs. individual conflict is spurious somehow. An "emotional" human is someone who lacks concentration of mind. In a human "led by emotions", the mind looks like a bus station, or a house with doors and windows wide open -- anything can come in and settle down. Those things that can come in can be the thoughts that arise in contact with other humans, or the thoughts that arise in contact with nature, animals ... Now, since most humans live in contact with other humans, the majority of thoughts we'll have are those about humans and all the things that have to do with them -- this is why it looks like one is complying to humanity, or that humanity is what matters, and not the individual.
Then maybe the "self" is our inevitable identification with some things, like our past, or our "first layers". However, it does not have to be our past, it could be anything else we identify with. But what we think our deepest level is, will also influence what we think we may identify with. Distancing yourself from any kind of identification is also "identification" - implicitly: "I am he/she who doesn't identify with anything". Therefore I don't think it's identification itself that is obstructive, but identifying with obstructions that is inhibiting. There are two landscapes, so to speak: that of the mind, and that of our nature (I won't bother trying to explain it again). Our nature is what seems determined, out of our control, "lucky or unlucky" - it seems to indicate whether we have to flow left or right, straight or winding. But our mind allows us to flow "uphill", to transcend our environment. There are two fallacies to be aware of: thinking that the environment itself has to be transcended (which means we don't recognize it as a valid influence) and thinking that we have to submit to it (which means we don't recongize our selves as valid agents of change). The "self", as I see it, is both a force of nature and a force of will. It's the contribution of an individual person.
Maybe the problem is in the evaluation of "growth" and "maturity". Are they good, or bad ... That's why I said "consistency is a bitch". Total systemic consistency seems a pipe dream at best, and we better not attempt it or we'll crumble on the way. The weight of total systemic consistency is too much for a mind (which is aware of its changing and limitations) to bear. I agree, there seems to be something that remains the same in us -- no matter what circumstances we are in. What is this that remains unchanging?
