Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: coberst on 17/07/2009 12:52:14
-
What is the source of class distinction?
The very first class distinction was between mortal and immortal; between human and superhuman. For the primitives it was often the dead who held power. Primitives were “securely immersed in his particular cultural ideology, which was in essence an ideology of life, of how to continue on and on to triumph over death.” Power was and is the basic category of being for which sapiens have fundamental respect.
The primitives recognized a spiritual cosmology wherein power emanated from the “pool of ancestors and spirits”. In the modern world power emanates from technology and money.
The infant recognizes the source of power quickly; power becomes the basic category of being. If one does not get this location of power one will have little opportunity to get anything else correct. Without power one quickly declined in vitality leading to death. The primitives were quick to recognize a hierarchy of power. With power the other basic category was ‘danger.
Since the eighteenth century the great minds have formed this question, ‘what is the source of inequality?’ and have sought the answer. Rousseau asked why humanity had gradually fallen from a primitive state of innocence into the conflicts of classes and states. Marx capitalized (a pun perhaps?) on Rousseau’s idea to remind us that humanity did not all start out as exploited peons. Today this class and state differential is more abundantly clear.
It has been deduced that power and coercion are not the only culprits here, it is that wo/man harbors an “enemy within”; perhaps the “slave is somehow in love with his own chains”.
Rousseau offered this answer “The first person who, having fenced off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say ‘this is mine’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.”
The salient question became ‘not when’ but ‘why’ it happened?
Primitive man recognized differences in talent, strength, and merit and easily deferred to these characteristics. Why—because such characteristics served well the needs of the tribe or community. Certain individuals showed ability for defying death and others wished to share in that immunity.
We see here that he “carries within himself the bondage that he needs in order to continue to live…we are born in need of authority and we even create out of freedom, a prison…This insight is the fruit of the outcome of modern psychoanalysis…it penetrates to the heart of the human condition and to the principle dynamic of the emergence of historical inequality…primitive religion starts the first class distinction…That is, the individual gives over the aegis of his own life and death to the spirit worlds; he is already a second-class citizen.”
“The first class distinction, then, was between mortal and immortal, between feeble human powers and special superhuman beings.”
Quotes from Escape from Evil by Ernest Becker
-
It is fear coberst, pure fear.
-
Am I the only one who's too stupid to understand Coberst's posts and overall strategy?
-
No you are not alone but it takes all sorts to make a forum.
-
Am I the only one who's too stupid to understand Coberst's posts and overall strategy?
Certainly not, you are in the majority. I've no idea why he posts! (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-confused013.gif&hash=396386a856152a890252526964cc44dd) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Am I the only one who's too stupid to understand Coberst's posts and overall strategy?
Let's see what kind of detective you might make.
If you are interested enough in an answer to your question try to give some answers as to why a person whould post as I do. I shall give you "hot" and "cold" hints as to the value of your guesses.
-
Coberst, my difficulty is knowing where your quotes end and where your own questions and opinions begin. I'd be really interested to read your posts if you stripped away some of the references and expressed your own thoughts. I'm sure it's almost certainly because I'm a thicko, but I do find it hard to wade through all of this extra reference material to grasp the essence of what you are asking us to discuss. Apologies if I seemed rude in my previous post.
I'd also be keen to know what you think of drain covers or bathing in jelly.
-
Coberst, my difficulty is knowing where your quotes end and where your own questions and opinions begin. I'd be really interested to read your posts if you stripped away some of the references and expressed your own thoughts. I'm sure it's almost certainly because I'm a thicko, but I do find it hard to wade through all of this extra reference material to grasp the essence of what you are asking us to discuss. Apologies if I seemed rude in my previous post.
I'd also be keen to know what you think of drain covers or bathing in jelly.
I use standard punctuation. When I use another person's words I enclose them in "quotation marks". Did they not teach that in your school?
-
Coberst, my difficulty is knowing where your quotes end and where your own questions and opinions begin. I'd be really interested to read your posts if you stripped away some of the references and expressed your own thoughts. I'm sure it's almost certainly because I'm a thicko, but I do find it hard to wade through all of this extra reference material to grasp the essence of what you are asking us to discuss. Apologies if I seemed rude in my previous post.
I'd also be keen to know what you think of drain covers or bathing in jelly.
I use standard punctuation. When I use another person's words I enclose them in "quotation marks". Did they not teach that in your school?
That's not what I meant. Of course I know what quotation marks are. What's not clear is how much these quotes reflect your opinions.
Please forget I said anything. I wish I'd never replied.
-
Another gem from Coberst. Well written nonsense.
The very first class distinction was between mortal and immortal; between human and superhuman.
Crap. Utter, infantile crap. And unlike Herman Melville - whom I applaud for his sincerity - I have no intention to apologise for being rude. You richly deserve it.
We are primates. We have inherited many of our behaviorual patterns from primates. There is a wealth of literature detailing these. I shall be happy to provide abundant references if requested. Primates in general and the great apes in particular have a heirarchical society. i.e. they have a class system. There is absolutely no evidence that our pre-human ancestors abandoned this class system and our first human ancestors adopted in its stead one in which the dead took precedence over the living. Consequently your statement that such was the first class system is shown to be the purest fantasy.
The rest of your post could be deconstructed in the same manner. I have neither the time nor the inlcination to do so, since you wouldn't pay a blind bit of attention to anything I said. You have an inherent need to believe your insights are powerful, your conclusions significant, and your thinking always sound. This is the pathology of self delusion. Enjoy. None of us can.
-
Drawing conclusions about the human psyche based upon untutored common sense is as justified as drawing conclusions about QM based upon untutored common sense.
We can see only what we are prepared to see and we comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend.
When I study a domain of knowledge that is new to me I do not try to insert my common sense untutored intuition in place of what the expert is writing about that domain of knowledge. I will over ride the expert with my own judgment only after I have studied the matter for a good amount of time. One cannot learn anything if they trust their uneducated common sense before that of the expert.
I think that we would be wise if we were to place our common sense reactions on hold until we had developed a comprehension of the domain of knowledge in question. If we reject all new stuff that is contrary to our common sense we will never grow intellectually.
-
I use standard punctuation. When I use another person's words I enclose them in "quotation marks". Did they not teach that in your school?
And this is why people think you are a dick who simply cuts and pastes, never had an original thought and believes he is above everyone else, simply because he once read a book.
Can you write a post in your own words?
-
Can you write a post in your own words?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-shocked003.gif&hash=ab88d8daaff00fc7b9d2bfb34c3df492) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) Its bad enough we get swamped with his cut and paste! Perhaps its best we don't get his thoughts and words.
-
Drawing conclusions about the human psyche based upon untutored common sense is as justified as drawing conclusions about QM based upon untutored common sense.
For once you have made a relevant and valid statement.
We can see only what we are prepared to see and we comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend.
Now you are talking in absolutes that have little coherent meaning. Many of us have acquired the habit of openmindedness that causes us to suspend judgement until there is sufficient data and then only to make provisional judgement. That is a form of preparation that allows us to see most, often all of what is there.
Our comprehension, in these circumstances, is then dictated by our prior knowledge and our intelligence. It has nothing to do with us being 'prepared' to comprehend, unless you mean adopting exactly the open mindedness I have just discussed.
When I study a domain of knowledge that is new to me I do not try to insert my common sense untutored intuition in place of what the expert is writing about that domain of knowledge.
Excuse me, but you just did it. If your remarks about the first class distinction being between mortal and immortal were from an expert, then they were no expert. Indeed they were less than an expert. To pontificate upon human psychology without some awareness of primate behaviour is arrogant and dumb in equal measure. If you have chosen to believe that nonsense then I have to ask, what happend to your much vaunted critical thinking.
If you arrived at that conclusion yourself then, again, that is a mix of arrogance and stupidity.
When I study a domain of knowledge that is new to me I do not try to insert my common sense untutored intuition in place of what the expert is writing about that domain of knowledge. I will over ride the expert with my own judgment only after I have studied the matter for a good amount of time.
Correct. And I have been studying primate behaviour for more than three decades, psychology for longer, and history for a couple of decades. I don't use common sense. I have no time for common sense. I disparage common sense.
If you have a problem of making decisions based upon common sense to the extent you have to guard against the risk, fine. Just don't assume that I would make such a foolish error as to employ common sense when I can study in depth the work of many true experts in a field, appreciating both the consensus and the controversy within that field.
I think that we would be wise if we were to place our common sense reactions on hold until we had developed a comprehension of the domain of knowledge in question. If we reject all new stuff that is contrary to our common sense we will never grow intellectually.
No. Forget common sense at any time. You seem to be fighting the use of common sense. Stop assuming everyone else has the same limitation.
Moreover, in this instance, even common sense is against you. Your own observations about the first class distinction are rejected on any count: common sense; historical evidence; primate ethology; psychology, you name it and there you will find a resounding no vote for your foolish claim that the first class distinction was between the mortal and the immortal.
Now when you have properly studied these matters, as I have, when you have understood what you are reading, when you have learnt how to have an original thought, then you can return and we may even be able to have a productive conversation. Until then expect to have the juvenile errors in your parroted, copy and paste work lambasted at every opportunity, or better yet ignored.
-
Ah at last coberst has someone to argue with. As my Mum always says "There is a lid for every dustbin."
-
I like that saying, MIL. Shame the dustbin is becoming extinct, killed off by local council dick heads and their wheelie bins.
-
Ah at last coberst has someone to argue with. As my Mum always says "There is a lid for every dustbin."
I applaud the intent of your post, unfortunately Coberst will not argue. When his ideas are challenged he either resorts to irrelevant posts, or he ignores his challengers. His statement was wrong, but will he concede this? If he does it will be a first and would suggest that there is still hope for him. However, based upon past performance we shall not hear anything further from him in this thread that directly addresses my refutation of his claim.
Go ahead coberst, surprise us. I have specifically demonstrated a point you made was flawed. Frankly it wasn't a very important point, so what is so difficult for you to concede that you were mistaken? Altertnatively, why don't you come back and demonstrate why my debunking was flawed. I don't think you can, but if you are honest and sincere those are your only two options: concede or fight.
-
Why are many forum members like untrained birddogs? Because untrained birddogs and many forum members go chasing after the first rabbit that jumps up. Unfortunatly I started this rabbit chase by responding to an earlier response.
-
Why are many forum members like untrained birddogs? Because untrained birddogs and many forum members go chasing after the first rabbit that jumps up. Unfortunatly I started this rabbit chase by responding to an earlier response.
Personally, I don't understand what you're getting at.
-
Why are many forum members like untrained birddogs? Because untrained birddogs and many forum members go chasing after the first rabbit that jumps up. Unfortunatly I started this rabbit chase by responding to an earlier response.
Personally, I don't understand what you're getting at.
Unfortunately I understand exactly what coberst is getting at and it is very sad.
Because he is unable to refute anything I have said in any of my posts, yet is equally incapable of admitting he may be wrong he adopts a different approach. He suggests that I have simply reacted to some inconsequential point and have quite missed his central thrust.
Coberts, for once stop being a dishonest wimp. Address the central point. Forget the crap about bird dogs.
You made this statement "The very first class distinction was between mortal and immortal..."
I have demonstrated that statement was wrong.
I demand that you either concede that it was wrong, or present an ordered argument that demonstrates it is correct and that I am the one who is wrong.
If you fail to do this I respectfully request that the admin/mods issue you a warning for trolling and failure to engage in discussion, which is - after all - the point of a discussion forum.
-
Why are many forum members like untrained birddogs? Because untrained birddogs and many forum members go chasing after the first rabbit that jumps up. Unfortunatly I started this rabbit chase by responding to an earlier response.
Personally, I don't understand what you're getting at.
I went bird hunting (quail) with a friend who had paid big bucks to someone to train his birddog. We started our hunt and the first rabbit that jumped up that "birddog" went tearing after that rabbit and just a few seconds later another jumped up and he went tearing after it. Most responders go tearing after the first bit of non sense they see in the title or first sentence of an OP and like the untrained birddog they are never helpful in hunting that which was the intent of the hunt or OP.
-
Most responders go tearing after the first bit of non sense they see in the title or first sentence of an OP and like the untrained birddog they are never helpful in hunting that which was the intent of the hunt or OP.
Has it never occured to you that if you are going to post nonsense that people are going to comment on it?
Are you admitting that rather than presenting a structured argument that builds one point upon another, you are just dropping in random thoughts with out much concern as to whether they are true are not?
Just what kind of a numbskull are you?
Edit: And I I should have added that I could have taken any portion of your OP and dismissed it just as readily. If you are talking crap expect to get covered in sh1t.
-
Hard work!!!!