Fwd: [blind-democracy] Re: New ideas, new paarties

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 08:09:36 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New ideas, new paarties
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
Cc: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net>

Human Nature? If there ever was such a thing as human nature, it has
been so contaminated by our own efforts to understand and control it,
that the term is meaningless. As I read what passes for history,
perhaps there is one thread that I might consider to be Human Nature.
The need to control. I might be persuaded to toss in the need to
reproduce, and the need to protect our young. Beyond that it seems
what we refer to as Human Nature has been so conditioned, so shaped to
meet the needs of those in control, so distorted by our own make
believe world, including our make believe After Life, that a pure
strain of Human Nature does not really exist outside of some dusty
psychology books.
Perhaps one other thread could be considered to be "Human Nature".
That is the need to be superior. That is, we project our customs and
current values onto the rest of Humanity. But that may also be part
of the shaping our present Ruling Class subjects us to.
We like to place values on our behavior. Like, good. But good is
subjective. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the rest of our
Foundering Fathers were considered men of virtue, men of moral values.
And they were declared to be "Good and kindly Masters". So we had
this concept that our Human Nature allowed us to possess other humans
so long as we were kindly disposed toward them.
It was long considered, and in many nations it is still considered,
that women are the "weaker sex", and must be cared for by their
controlling menfolk. But today, at least in many parts of America,
women are now seen to be equal partners.
We are so deeply involved in our own values that we are blind to just
how much our human nature has been shaped. The truth is that some
people are good, decent people, by our current definition of Good, and
"Decent", in spite of their basic human nature that calls for them to
control.
My eldest daughter will turn 54 this year, Born in 1962, the America
she became part of was far different than today's America. Check it
out. I participated in raising her to be a Good and Decent Woman. We
bought her dolls, paper cutouts, put frilly "girlie" frills around her
room and dressed her in cute girl clothes. The Protestant church my
first wife and I belonged to still believed that women must cover
their heads when entering the House of Worship. Our Human Nature was
very different than the Human Nature we observed around us, even
within our own city. In Seattle, Blacks, called Negroes, were seen as
lazy, not too bright, musical folk who were unable to take care of
their money, and thus were living in the Ghetto because of the lack in
their Nature. The Chinese were industrious, but "chose" to live in
China Town. We "Normal" people saw the differences in the Nature of
each ethnic group, and it was obvious to us that ours was the Superior
Nature.
We had, all of us, so polluted what we named, "Human Nature", that
there was no way of being objective. Even our best psychiatrists are
controlled by how we define Human Nature. Check it out. Compare how
early practitioners defined what makes us human beings, as compared to
the "enlightened" views of today.
Finally, what drives me up a wall is our ability to redefine history
by applying today's values onto the backs of our ancestors, and then
going forward trying to make sense of the events of their day. Even
Jesus shows up as a blond, blue eyed, light skinned European Baby.
We have rewritten the entire "Word of God", and continue to shape its
message to our current values.
I would love to see what "Human Nature" looks like in another 54
years. Hmm...I'll be 135 then.
Oh well.

Carl Jarvis

On 8/1/16, Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@verizon.net> wrote:
> The examples you giving have less to do with human nature and more to do
> with mental illness, because they are, dare I say, ridiculous, extremes. The
> things you propose as what if's also have little to do with reality. They're
> also, as you do point out, impossible.
> But after proposing these things you restate your position that objective
> conditions determine human behavior. Sonow having rejected your proposals as
> demonstrating nothing, I'll restate my position
> that objective conditions do not determine human behavior or, more to the
> point of the original argument, they don't determine whether the negative or
> the positive sides of human thought that determines behavior will prevail,
> that in the same objective conditions, an entire gamut of human nobility and
> human cruelty can be observed.
> What I offered as substantiation for my position are observations of very
> different human behavior existing in the same objective conditions. What
> wins out? Cowardice or bravery? Altruism or selfishness? Helping others or
> helping one's self? Working together, sharing available resources or
> grabbing all one can get for one's self? Inviting strangers in to offer them
> shelter or being only concerned with one's self or even only with one's own
> family? Giving things away to those in need or selling them? At a certain
> point, objective conditions and/or external, unconnected circumstances
> might determine who survives and who dies, or maybe even that everybody
> dies, no matter which choices were made, no matter who has behaved in which
> manner. But those choices will also have influenced that outcome, at least
> in certain cases, to a certain extent. On Jul 31, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Roger
> Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
> <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Okay, we don't have to go back twenty thousand years. Let's look at right
>> now. What happens if you decide that you are not going to acquire or spend
>> money from now on? No matter what your proclivities might be what choice
>> do you have? Or suppose you decided that methods of electricity production
>> have a negative effect on the environment and so you will not use it. That
>> means that you will not consume food that is produced with any use of
>> electricity; you will not wear clothing that was produced with any use of
>> electricity; you will not live in a dwelling that was built with any use
>> of electricity. How far will you get and how long will you survive? Or
>> suppose you decide that it is your duty to take care of every destitute
>> person. Once you give everything you have away to them and find that there
>> are plenty of destitute people left including yourself who is going to
>> take care of you? The point is that objective conditions have a lot, a
>> whole lot, to do with one's behavior. There are simply things that one has
>> to do and cannot do under certain objective conditions and if those
>> conditions are changed the range of possibilities shift along with them.
>> If there are things that it is desirable for people to do and other things
>> that it is undesirable for people to do then by changing the objective
>> conditions they will have no choice but to change their behavior.
>> On 7/31/2016 4:22 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
>>> My examples did not have anything to do with money per se, but OK, not
>>> money then, but the mentality and behavior described is fairly clear.
>>> And really, how much relevance does 20,000 years ago really have,
>>> particularly given the dearth of records, accounts, and other assorted
>>> evidence that can tell the story in depth?
>>> On Jul 31, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
>>> "rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to see you hoard money twenty thousand years ago when not
>>>> only did money not exist but the concept of money did not even exist.
>>>> The objective conditions just simply did not allow for the hoarding of
>>>> money and not much of anything else either.
>>>>
>>>> On 7/31/2016 2:45 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
>>>>> Both the better and worse sides of human nature prevail in every
>>>>> objective condition you can name. The objective conditions actually
>>>>> have the least effect on how people behave. Some people who have every
>>>>> good thing imaginable and in excess are selfish pricks who wouldn't
>>>>> throw a life preserver to a drowning man, even if it cost them nothing,
>>>>> whereas, although I know you scoff at this, others establish
>>>>> scholarships, foundations, support scientific research, open settlement
>>>>> schools, that's not so common anymore, establish libraries, and while
>>>>> none of these things significantly diminishes their lives of privilege,
>>>>> it's still preferable to keeping it all for themselves and ripping off
>>>>> those less wealthy than they are. . Some people in the face of
>>>>> unspeakable deprivation and horror will hoard everything they can get
>>>>> their hands on, and others will share whatever little they they have
>>>>> with others around them.
>>>>> On Jul 31, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
>>>>> "rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just believing or not believing that the better sides of human nature
>>>>>> will or will not prevail does nothing to make it prevail or not
>>>>>> prevail. If you really want those better sides to prevail it will be
>>>>>> necessary to work to change the objective conditions under which they
>>>>>> operate. Recently I came up with an example that I kind of like. That
>>>>>> is what do you do if you want a stiff alcoholic drink in Saudi Arabia.
>>>>>> I am neither saying that the consumption of alcohol is good or bad. I
>>>>>> am simply saying that the objective conditions in Saudi Arabia are
>>>>>> such that it would be extremely hard to get drunk no matter how much
>>>>>> you wanted to. If you have lived there all your life it is even likely
>>>>>> that you will not want to get drunk or even think about getting drunk.
>>>>>> The trouble with Saudi Arabia is that the sides of human nature that
>>>>>> that society encourages and discourages are not the sides that I think
>>>>>> should be encouraged and discouraged. The point remains, though, that
>>>>>> if you don't want certain behavior to take place you have to construct
>>>>>> the objective conditions such that it cannot take place and if you
>>>>>> want other behaviors to take place you have to construct the objective
>>>>>> conditions such that they will be inevitable.
>>>>>> On 7/31/2016 10:11 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
>>>>>>> As I said to Dick, cynic that I am, I can't quite bring myself to
>>>>>>> really believe that the better sides of human nature won't prevail,
>>>>>>> experience notwithstanding. There are many, many examples in which it
>>>>>>> does, despite many people's tendencies to rip even those to shreds
>>>>>>> because they are not 100% perfect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And now, I'm going to do a little of that: you speak of the ethical
>>>>>>> humanist movement, but look at how shabbily the New York chapter
>>>>>>> treated you and your husband. Where were all their admirable
>>>>>>> principles of equality and the positive sides of human nature then?
>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, humann nature is what it is. We have the potential for
>>>>>>>> altruism
>>>>>>>> and cooperation, and we have the potential for aggression and
>>>>>>>> domination. If
>>>>>>>> we assume that every effort toward making our political and economic
>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> will end in failure because the negative aspects of human nature
>>>>>>>> will win
>>>>>>>> out, then really, there's no point in trying anything that might
>>>>>>>> improve
>>>>>>>> life for all of us. One of the things that I really like about the
>>>>>>>> Ethical
>>>>>>>> Culture, or Ethical Humanist movement, is its emphasis on working
>>>>>>>> toward the
>>>>>>>> kind of society that will encourage the positive aspects of human
>>>>>>>> nature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>