It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Astrocyte
It's deeply ironic that the person who coined the term 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' - Friedrich Nietzsche - was in fact mentally obliterated by a disease that arose a a function of his own promiscuity.
Why do people do this? That is - why was Friedrich Nietzsche both a) so bothered by Judeo-Christian morality and b) so motivated to pursue a philosophy associated for millennia with the imperialist elite class?
John is tasked with calling people to ask for donations to an important police charity. When John is given an explanation by the owner of the house for why they can't give money, John hangs up, experiencing their explanations with irritation, John - as well many other cops at the station - share stories with one another about their intolerance for people who go into long-winded explanations for why they can't give money.
Is that really irony?
originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: JD163
True. Some people are sufficiently disconneced from the effects of their actions for others to not experience a 'conscientious' state like guilt. Guilt is a function of an unconscious dynamic between two self-states, or beliefs. For instance, I may be very interested in helping people or a charity, but when not able to do it, I want to explain to myself why I can't do it - and the Human being tends to do that through conversations with others. I thus seek to explain to you why I can't do it to control the subtle feelings which drive me to not want to give money.
Point being, a person who makes an effort to communicate like this is attempting to increase awareness inter-subjectively, so that the sort of factors which make people unable to give money can be known to the person in question.
To give you an example of a difference in processing experiences like this. My sister actually had the above situation happen to her. I on the other hand, like you, find myself able to end conversations like this because of a lack of sensitivity in me to the issue at hand. This lack of sensitivity, mind you, is money-based: I don't have money to give, therefore there is no point for me to even carry on in this conversation. Yet, I can also acknowledge that there is room for improvement here: I can be more considerate than I typically am.
People just need to be real about how they act: we very rarely recognize the unconscious source for our behaviors, and the only way to improve upon this condition is to become aware i.e. educate yourself as to those myriad factors which influence the organization of our motivations, such as the experiences we've had, how they've affected us (against species typical attractors) and following this sort of explanation every Human being can be 'slotted' into some situation of unresolved and unprocessed delusion - fantasies, wishes, which serve to protect us against negative feelings. Furthermore, these ways-of-believing are socially learned i.e. assimilated into brain-mind functioning for the purpose of FUTURE adaptability i.e. to better predict how to self-organize, and thus make your own self-experience coherent.
My present project - what I am doing and have been doing for 5 or 6 years now, is to attempt to fix the human sciences so that the political sciences of our day reflect the best science, which I define as an approach to explaining Human behavior in terms of existing principles that precede the existence of the Human being, i.e in origin of life studies - a bophysical science - which ultimately speaks to the complex phenomena of adaptive systems.
The amount of delusion which capitalism - and elitism - and the obsession with power - has sowed in the social sciences and the bio-anthropological sciences - in even providing some blanket justification for present elite behavior i.e. such as in the contemporary obsession with the 'machiavellian political mind', itself based up on the shockingly inaccurate 'selfish gene' theory - derives from the social input of a pre-existing aristocratic culture among elite - aristocratic in the assumption that they are possessors of the correct knowledge - and so naturally the emphasis in the sciences was 'competition' and 'geneology' - not how the organism works, which is itself a source of incredible awe: no - the focus was on coming to make sense of how elites were better and 'naturally selected' over the common people.
Reality, of course, has shown utterly impoverished this philosophy is. Non-African humans are more genetically alike than
any two groups within the mitochondrial 'haplotypes' of Africans - basically whats known as L0, L1, and L2. he L3 haplotype - originating in the Bantu people of southern Africa, and possessed by Semites and semi-semites, is what the majority of Human beings derive from.
Elitism is not a philosophy with any basis in biological reality. At the very most, perennial elites may be severely psychologically unstable - and so on an fMRI it may not be surprising to find greater bi-lateralization of the hemispheres i.e. if there is no effort to attune and make coherent meaning of the signals of others - and if the selfs interests begins to take precedence over a mutual and reciprocal society of self-other equivalence, then perennial elites may have a brain that is structrually different, simply because the social-environment they constantly manipulate affords the material and epistemic advantages they maintain from one generation to the next. The individual self does not make a consistent effort to makes its relations with others reasonable and just.
The problem with this philosophy - in light of climate change, and what it means in terms of the limits of growth, because we exist within a bounded system (a planet) - is that it necessarily relies upon extraction i.e. exploitation, of others, to bring about their enlivenment. Materialism is not in-itself problematic: whats problematic is the subjugation of a relationship that means more (human relations) to the desire to claim ownership, control or power over some system as a way to enrich the self.
In short, people who don't share come to HATE sharing, and come to experience people who speak like me - with hatred, annoyance, cynicism, or apathy. My words constitute a "threat" to their coherency system - and their system will pre-consciously filter out my intended meaning because thats how we work: our brain filters our conflictual information so as to 'set up' coherency.
originally posted by: Astrocyte
As many people have noted, we are ruled by Humans with a 17-18th century epistemology.
They have not revised their views in light of the evidence from the sciences.
Nietzsche was EPISTEMOLOGICALLY NAIVE - as is anyone else so unfortunate not to realize or understand the point I'm making.
My theory of human self-organization positions "being positively known" as the bar - the intrinsic teleodynamic 'standard', the sine-quo-non of...