Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:17 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
Thanks: 3484
Thanked: 1319 times in 1041 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
Please use this thread for discussing Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash.



Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:16 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
All Your Posts are Belong to Us!


Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 69
Location: Barstow, California
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 9 times in 9 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
Quote:
What’s repurposing?


Hail,

I’m commenting on Howard’s second chapter here, and to do so I’ve begun re-reading this chapter. I got as far as the first sentence, which is a question.

When I read this the first time, it was as if the author spoke to me personally, like a friend who is sympathetic.

I happened to have recently undergone a significant personal boom and bust, and I had to repurpose. I know the answer to the question, and I know it intimately.

__________ Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:18 am __________

What is repurposing?

What is the purpose?



Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:18 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Graduate Student

Silver Contributor

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 416
Location: Portland, OR
Thanks: 4
Thanked: 39 times in 32 posts
Gender: Female
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
I sort of see in this book that he is often times talking about a cycle of life: birth, death, shortage, abundance. I think that this is a reality in nature and I can completely see that. I think that he is doing a little too much anthropomorphizing, however. For example, I would like to see some evidence that bees feel or have the same type of social interactions that human do. Bloom says:

"Think of how you feel when you show up at home with what you think is a hot piece of gossip and your mate listens to your first sentence, then turns his back on you. At the very least it depresses you. It does the same damned thing to a bee".

I don't believe that is true. I think that human social interactions and emotional reactions are pretty unique. From what I understand of ants, they are pretty rote. They just do what they do, instinctively. I would assume it would be the same with bees. It would be hard to see a bee pouting or suffering from a bout of depression because the unloaders stop needing water. I think this is a stretch.

I think that it is pretty hard to say that any form of economic or political structure is ordained by nature. As a friend of mine says, these structures are purely human. While humanity is definitely a part of nature we are a pretty unique part of nature. I think that Bloom is a very smart guy though. I am kind of waiting to see if he adds something to his argument.



Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:54 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
All Your Posts are Belong to Us!


Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 69
Location: Barstow, California
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 9 times in 9 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
Quote:
I don't believe that is true.


seespotrun2008,

Thanks for the perspective, and I don't believe that the viewpoint is literally accurate. To say that bee's feel or that bee's can believe, on a level equal to human feelings and beliefs, is over the top. The elementary building blocks of feelings and beliefs may be what was on the mind of the author - the baby steps.

A political structure, where the species members falsify communications for gain, at the expense of their rivals (or targets), may be purely human, as your friend says, I can believe that, but that brings into my view a question. Is politics (the lying part) a species killer, a destructive mutation, or is there some other species sustaining purpose?



Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:45 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Graduate Student

Silver Contributor

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 416
Location: Portland, OR
Thanks: 4
Thanked: 39 times in 32 posts
Gender: Female
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
Quote:
Thanks for the perspective, and I don't believe that the viewpoint is literally accurate. To say that bee's feel or that bee's can believe, on a level equal to human feelings and beliefs, is over the top. The elementary building blocks of feelings and beliefs may be what was on the mind of the author - the baby steps.


That could be. Maybe I need things more clearly spelled out. He is often asking us to think of how we would feel when it comes to the relationships between other species in nature. I take issue with that. I think that because our relationships and reactions are very unique, it is a stretch to ask us to think of our own reactions in reference to another species. Not that we are superior in any way, or that there is some hierarchy where we are on top, but we are very different.

Quote:
A political structure, where the species members falsify communications for gain, at the expense of their rivals (or targets), may be purely human, as your friend says, I can believe that, but that brings into my view a question. Is politics (the lying part) a species killer, a destructive mutation, or is there some other species sustaining purpose?


I don’t necessarily think that political structures where manipulation is used for gain is unique to humans. Dawkins talks about manipulation between creatures in The Extended Phenotype. And animals definitely have political issues going on. Living with three cats has taught me that. :) I think that each species has complexities and limitations that are unique to its own, however. I think that when I read about some of these things that he is talking about (like the bee and rejection) I am going to automatically feel those things because that is how I react as a human. Asking me to think of a bee feeling that same thing (which Bloom clearly does) is asking me to think something that is not necessarily accurate, like you said. I think I like Dawkins because he is very much a scientist and he takes each species as its own unique entity while looking at similarities. I also feel that Dawkins is obviously trying to be objective. I expect more of that when reading about science. I don’t think that is what Bloom is doing. That's fine. It is just an observation on my part.



Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:00 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5813
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2268
Thanked: 2197 times in 1664 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
So many books, so little time...

I loved reading The Genius of the Beast, and this chapter was one of my favourites. I feel there is a contradiction within SeeSpotRun’s comments that humans are unique but not superior.

Language and global civilization definitely indicate a human superiority to all other animals, indicated in intelligence tests where even dolphins and whales rank as fairly stupid by human standards. However, this difference has been exaggerated and manipulated historically into one of kind rather than degree. Descartes said animals are machines, and the church said animals do not have souls. These attitudes have led to blind and cruel exploitation of animals. It seems bees may be reacting to being used as machines through their colony collapse disorder. Bloom shows the continuity between human and animal emotion, showing that even cells and bacteria provide a good model of the search and consolidate model of economic boom and crash.

This chapter inspired me to suggest Hive of BeeCraft as a computer game on the model of World of WarCraft, so that a person could actually take the real simulated perspective of a bee, flying around its environment and interacting with other bees in the hive, modelled on actual nature. People commented to me that this would be dull and boring, but that just illustrates their ignorant anthropocentric prejudices and assumptions. The way Howard Bloom describes a day in the life of a bee shows that emotion is a real driver of behaviour. The sense of rejection at failing to deliver and the highly evolved structures of the gatekeepers and the dance floor jive at the hive indicate that bee psychology is far more complex than people assume. There is a tendency (from Descartes and the Bible) to assume that animals are machines, but when we look scientifically at animal behaviour we find that there are very many similarities with human attitudes, showing strong instinctive continuity between all life.



The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
Chris OConnor
Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:15 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
All Your Posts are Belong to Us!


Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 69
Location: Barstow, California
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 9 times in 9 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
Quote:
I don’t necessarily think that political structures where manipulation is used for gain is unique to humans.


seespotrun2008.

My offering had to do with deceit, where the individual member of the species is employing deceit so as to gain at the expense of another individual member of the species.

To take the Bee species analogy: it would be like dancing the dance that sends other Bee’s on a wild goose chase at a rival colony, so as to reduce the power of that colony in surviving, and then dance the right dance at the home colony so Bee’s at the home colony are sent to where the actual food is.

My viewpoint tends to identify deceit as a particularly destructive, even species killing, adaptation in the march of life toward wherever it is going.

I’m remember a part in the book (perhaps not in this specific chapter) where some species of birds are known to kill off wounded individuals of their group. The presumption is that that adaptation is to avoid the possible group’s loss of power in the wasted effort to keep a dying individual alive – rather than spend scarce power on keeping living individuals alive and reproducing.

I offered my version of your version here:

Quote:
I think that it is pretty hard to say that any form of economic or political structure is ordained by nature. As a friend of mine says, these structures are purely human.


I do not distinguish between politics and economy much; they are one and the same thing, along the lines of deceit and violence being one and the same thing, joined at the hip as told by Solzhenitsyn in his Nobel Lecture. Political/Economy so long as two human beings are involved into a group, connected by some link, where power is transferred between them is the connection between two human beings - a power struggle.

I don’t expect anyone else to see things my way; hence my fondness for honest, or accurate, communication/discussion; I can be shown to be in error, or supported when not in error.

If you offer a perspective that suggests that something is unique to the human species, then my reply is to suggest that an accurately identifiable unique trait may be the employment of deceit as a means by which individual members of the species gain power from other individual members of the species. Are there more unique traits? Is deceit equal to politics and economy is equal to accurate connections between invividuals without the deciet (or violence) during division of labor, specialization, etc.?

Suppose the bird example can play out this way:

Birds A,B, and C (three birds witnessing the accident that wounded bird D) decide not to attack and kill off the wounded bird after choosing not to help it, not to bring it food, not to cover it with sticks and insulating stuff, etc. – but they don’t do anything for the wounded bird whatsoever.

These birds don’t waste any time or effort either helping or further injuring the wounded bird - directly.

Birds A,B, and C, return to the group area and communicate to the other birds a false message concerning the still living wounded bird, they create a deception, they say that the wounded bird is dead, therefore no one else is inclined to help a dead bird.

One close relative of the bird may ask to see the dead bird, waste more time and effort on some strange new adaptation of homage paid to the dead bird, so the false story goes on to report that the dead bird was swallowed up by a whale - disappeared.

If the offering is to suggest that humans are unique in political economy then I’m going to turn that suggestion around to focus attention on precisely what is unique – if possible.

I’m specifically concerned about behavior whereby one individual member of the species employs deceit (or violence) to gain at the expense of other individual members of the species since to me that would be a species killing adaptation – taken to its logical conclusion. What would be the point of such an adaptation from a species perspective?

That harkens me back to the question concerning randomness, where life is random or life is something more than random, not accident, life is a process, a force, a quantity, and life has a purpose, that which is to be alive, to perpetuate, to survive, to reproduce, to continue.

If life were strictly random, it seems to me, it would be very difficult to explain perception, or anything else for that matter.

What is, for example, the perception that we call by the name “random”?

Is it an observable occurrence whereby the matter being observed is void of purpose? The matter being observed is not seeking anything, yet is moves?

Doesn’t gravity exist in all matter – or most of it? Is that not a purpose? What happens when lots and lots of matter are attracted into one group?

Here is where I restate an earlier observation: reading Bloom’s work is like having a queen handed to me by a teammate playing 3 way chess. I may waste the bounty, because the timer is clicking.

__________ Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:45 pm __________

Quote:
Language and global civilization definitely indicate a human superiority to all other animals, indicated in intelligence tests where even dolphins and whales rank as fairly stupid by human standards.


Robert,

If you are not set against reading science fiction, and you have not yet read Orson Scott Cards Ender series, I suggest that you give it a try. The idea there was, among other things, to illustrate the extreme difference between human life restricted to the life span of one planet and human life expanded beyond the life span of one planet.

Dolphins are further away from reproducing on other planets compared to Humans, and by that measure, it seems to me, the word “superiority” is precisely quantified. If all species on earth die with earth’s capacity to support life, then by that measure all species are precisely equal.

Quote:
There is a tendency (from Descartes and the Bible) to assume that animals are machines, but when we look scientifically at animal behaviour we find that there are very many similarities with human attitudes, showing strong instinctive continuity between all life.


What is the quality of life, the exact thing, which discriminates machine type animals from non-machine type animals? Where is that dividing point? I’m curious. Once that thing is identified, what is its purpose?



Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:45 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Graduate Student

Silver Contributor

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 416
Location: Portland, OR
Thanks: 4
Thanked: 39 times in 32 posts
Gender: Female
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
Sorry it took so long to respond to this. I broke my ankle and have not felt like doing a whole lot outside of work. I am feeling a ton better though. So I finally am getting a chance to respond to these comments.

Quote:
I feel there is a contradiction within SeeSpotRun’s comments that humans are unique but not superior.


I disagree. You would not say a mammal and a reptile are the same. All life has some similarities but different creatures have different characteristics. I know that amongst human beings difference has generally meant inferior vs. superior. It does not have to mean that but it generally does. I am not sure why this is or if it can ever be different.

The problem that I have, though, with his writing about the bees is that he is asking the reader, with human reactions and thought processes, to place all of those things onto a bee. Since we do not ultimately know what that bee is thinking or feeling it is presumptuous to assume that the scenario that he suggests is what is actually taking place. He is also asking us to relate to the bee in the scenario the way that he is interpreting the scenario. He is asking us to assume that because he interpreted bee behavior in the way that he did, and because we can relate to how WE would feel in a similar situation….therefore bees are just one link in the chain that proves that capitalism is built into biology.

Throughout this book I have noticed that he puts his own values and assumptions onto culture, history, religion, and science. Many of his arguments are pretty surface. He does not go very deep into any of these subjects or observe or try to understand outside of his limited worldview. I do like his positivity and his ability to see the glass half full instead of half empty. From what I have been reading though it seems that he has an agenda and he is going to prove that agenda no matter what. Maybe we all do that but I feel that the goal of scholarship should be to try to understand and work to overcome assumptions. Not that it is ever possible to completely let go of assumptions, but it should be the goal. But maybe that is my own bias.

Quote:
I do not distinguish between politics and economy much


But they are not really the same. They are at times intimately connected but I think that you can have politics without economics but not economics without politics. In fact I don’t think that you can really have any human endeavor without politics (unfortunately :) ). Like you said, a power struggle.

Quote:
I’m specifically concerned about behavior whereby one individual member of the species employs deceit (or violence) to gain at the expense of other individual members of the species since to me that would be a species killing adaptation – taken to its logical conclusion. What would be the point of such an adaptation from a species perspective?


Good question. I am not really sure. Why are some species very territorial? We are very territorial. How does that benefit various species?



Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:40 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
All Your Posts are Belong to Us!


Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 69
Location: Barstow, California
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 9 times in 9 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
Quote:
But they are not really the same.


seespotrun2008,

Of course they are not the same exact thing; but they are one and the same thing as a category of human behavior – deceit and violence like this:

Human Behavior

Or this:

Crime

I’m going to quote from Solzhenitsyn; to help convey the point being offered to you (since you appear to be disagreeing with something as yet misunderstood – by me):

nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/ ... cture.html

Quote:
We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.



Here is my version (intending to convey a very similar viewpoint – if not the same exact viewpoint):

Quote:
I do not distinguish between politics and economy much


For me to bridge the gap between the two separate things (Solzhenitsyn’s viewpoint and my viewpoint expressed with different written words) I’d need cooperation from you, not contention.

Quote:
They are at times intimately connected but I think that you can have politics without economics but not economics without politics.


To my way of measuring reality the above is not true. It does not measure up. How can politics be defined so that politics can afford to proceed without economy – and visa versa?

From my view the phenomenon that is labeled as “politics” is a phenomenon that exists in the psychological realm of human reality – rocks and trees are not involved in politics; while economy is a phenomenon that involves physical reality – as perceived by human beings with their psychological perspectives – again rocks and trees are not involved in economy, as such.

The natural growth of a species of tree can be said (by a human being employing a human brain) to be an example of natural economy. The actual objective measure of the process of tree species life is either complete down to measuring exactly everything that occurs in the physical world, or some bias concerning what is assumed to be left unmeasured is chosen by the measurer who employs the measuring devices.

Perhaps the focus is on the linking mechanism between politics/deceit and economy/violence, or even the linking mechanism between assumption and bias.

What connects the two separate things into one thing?

I find this to be a very interesting point to ponder since your words (to me) appear to link “bias” and “assumption” into one thing.

Here:

Quote:
Not that it is ever possible to completely let go of assumptions, but it should be the goal. But maybe that is my own bias.


Could that sentence mean the same thing (do you mean the same thing) if it were written as such:

Not that it is ever possible to completely let go of bias, but it should be the goal. But maybe that is my own assumption.

What connects the two?

What connects us two?

An assumption, it seems to me, could be someone, anyone, in time and space where a decision must be made, even if the decision is to avoid making a decision, then time moves on and certainly the space occupied by the person doing the assuming is measurably different (displacement).

That last paragraph may appear to be mystical; I have this ongoing perception of velocity working, so please entertain this side note for a moment.

If matter has been accelerating since the event known as the Big Bang, then human beings are now traveling very fast, unimaginably fast, and so the viewpoint of that velocity goes to an extreme by default – something along the lines of contemplating eternity. If, for example, a person were to stop traveling, while every other person kept going (at the present velocity, plus the rate of acceleration), how much distance would separate the one from the others in one second?

The answer is unimaginable; not quite like contemplating the national debt.

Quote:
Good question. I am not really sure. Why are some species very territorial? We are very territorial. How does that benefit various species?


My question (good question) tends to produce data that measures criminal brains and compares criminal brains to non-criminal brains, such as the work done by Fromm in his book titled: The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.

To suggest that my question is relative to life forms that are “very territorial” is to miss the point (it seems to me). I can go on and on with that explanation (from my viewpoint) and I’ll borrow from Solzhenitsyn in doing so, if that path is aggreable.

Here is my question (good question) again:

I’m specifically concerned about behavior whereby one individual member of the species employs deceit (or violence) to gain at the expense of other individual members of the species since to me that would be a species killing adaptation – taken to its logical conclusion. What would be the point of such an adaptation from a species perspective?

Some human brains have mutated, or so the measure goes, to be missing parts that are associated with specific brain functions common to thoughts and behavior that are said to be empathetic.

I’ll try to post this and see what happens, my computer failed to publish a previous response.



Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:53 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Graduate Student

Silver Contributor

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 416
Location: Portland, OR
Thanks: 4
Thanked: 39 times in 32 posts
Gender: Female
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
Quote:
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/ ... cture.html


I like this essay. Very poetic.

So are you saying that politics and economy always involve some sort of violence or deceit?

Quote:
From my view the phenomenon that is labeled as “politics” is a phenomenon that exists in the psychological realm of human reality – rocks and trees are not involved in politics; while economy is a phenomenon that involves physical reality – as perceived by human beings with their psychological perspectives – again rocks and trees are not involved in economy, as such.


So let me repeat in my own words what you said here, so that I am making sure that I do not misunderstand. You are defining “politics” as the psychology coming from inside the person and economy is a human beings relation to physical things outside of him or herself. Which you could technically say is a person's psychology to an outside stimulous. Is that correct?

Quote:
Quote:
Not that it is ever possible to completely let go of assumptions, but it should be the goal. But maybe that is my own bias.



Could that sentence mean the same thing (do you mean the same thing) if it were written as such:

Not that it is ever possible to completely let go of bias, but it should be the goal. But maybe that is my own assumption.


I think that it does mean the same thing. I would agree with your quote here:

Quote:
An assumption, it seems to me, could be someone, anyone, in time and space where a decision must be made, even if the decision is to avoid making a decision, then time moves on and certainly the space occupied by the person doing the assuming is measurably different (displacement).


An assumption is a decision, whether conscious or unconscious, to see the world a certain way. Here is the definition of assumption according to dictionary.com

Quote:
1.
to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit: to assume that everyone wants peace.



Here is the definition of bias:

Quote:
a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.


Quote:
What connects the two?


They are both an unexamined way of seeing the world. Scholarship is about examining those decisions; it is about bringing assumption or bias to the conscious mind and unraveling them.

Quote:
What connects us two?


Probably booktalk. :D

Quote:
My question (good question) tends to produce data that measures criminal brains and compares criminal brains to non-criminal brains, such as the work done by Fromm in his book titled: The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.

To suggest that my question is relative to life forms that are “very territorial” is to miss the point (it seems to me). I can go on and on with that explanation (from my viewpoint) and I’ll borrow from Solzhenitsyn in doing so, if that path is aggreable.


Interesting. I have not read this book so I do not know what Fromm means by criminal vs. non-criminal. What makes someone a criminal? Are criminals only the people whose behavior is considered immoral by the rest of society? Which society? And people do not always consider violence criminal. Soldiers are not seen as criminals. Police who shoot someone in the line of duty are often not considered criminal. In many parts of the world and sometimes in our own culture violence against women is not seen as criminal.

I argue that in most if not all cases of violence there is some form of claiming territory. War is claiming territory over resources and over the bodies of the people in the culture you are claiming. Rape and murder is claiming territory over another person's body. Even in self defense your brain has decided that your life is more valuable than the life who is threatening yours.



Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:13 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
All Your Posts are Belong to Us!


Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 69
Location: Barstow, California
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 9 times in 9 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Ch. 2 (II): The Birds and the Bees of Boom and Crash
Quote:
So are you saying that politics and economy always involve some sort of violence or deceit?


seespotrun2008,

I have not seen, nor do I now see, that politics and economy always involve some sort of violence or deceit. I can’t see the connection as a necessary one, not like the connection between violence and deceit, and not like the connection between politics and economy.

I see these connections:

Violence/Deceit

Politics/Economy

I don’t see this connection as a necessary one:

Violence/Deceit – connected to – Politics/Economy

Politics can be separated from violence.
Politics can be separated from deceit
Economy can be separated from violence
Economy can be separated from deceit

All of those separations can continue for as long as people avoid criminals who willfully commit crimes and that leaves accidental violence and accidental “deceit” (an oxymoron type conundrum, paradox, etc.?).

Why would anyone assume or have a bias for an inevitable connection with crime (inevitable connections with criminals who commit crimes)? That someone is not me.

I think it may be important at this point to define crime in such a way as to leave no room for the ability of a criminal to cover his or her crimes with deceit.

Crime is the willful injury of innocent victims by a criminal – for profit.

Even if the profit is “just for fun”, the idea here is to establish willful intent and then actual action taken so as to cause the intended injury to the innocent victim.

That would be crime, and violence isn’t necessary. A so called “president” can sign a piece of paper, or push “the button”, and “unleash the (aggressive) Dogs of War”.

A corporate president can sign a work order fully aware of how the work done will, necessarily, poison the ground water, or continue to poison the ground water, and thereby, and quite literally, destroy lives.

Those are examples of crime, they happen, they occur; they are no more necessary than deciding to look one degree to the west instead of looking one degree to the east. Which way do you want to look?

Perhaps there is a connection I can’t see, pertaining to your question, I’m all ears. What would connect crime to economy – inexorably?

The connection that does exist is measurable, as criminals want something for relatively nothing.

The words are now dancing around the problem I have with the book on the table, and I can explain in detail. For now I’ll read on with your very welcome response, to me this is vital stuff being dissected.

Quote:
So let me repeat in my own words what you said here, so that I am making sure that I do not misunderstand. You are defining “politics” as the psychology coming from inside the person and economy is a human beings relation to physical things outside of him or herself. Which you could technically say is a person's psychology to an outside stimulous. Is that correct?


I read that and confirm it as being something I would write myself. I find this way of seeing as being a very useful measure of reality. Politics is to psychology as economy is to physics.

Quote:
Probably booktalk.


Smiling is nice, thanks. There is a difference between bias and assumption – or there would not be so many letters used up in the latter. Something must explain the creation of two words when one would suffice.

I think you may have a handle on the difference as, perhaps, a measure of awareness perceived by the proprietor.

Was the proprietor aware of his or her own bias?

Was the proprietor aware of his or her own assumption?

The difference can be seen, it seems to me, as cultural in the case of bias and not at all cultural in the case of an assumption.

The difference can be seen as an automatic response to turn left instead of right in the case of bias, while the case of assumption causes the person to pause and then decide to go ahead with an assumed turn; one that is assumed to be better than the other for some reason – or just for fun.

Have you seen that movie called No Country for Old Men? In it there is a villain who flips a coin to aid in decision making. I think that type of phenomenon can help illuminate the wide gap between bias and assumption – if there is a gap at all.

Quote:
They are both an unexamined way of seeing the world.


This reminds me of something similar, perhaps, in the difference between learning and instruction, a difference brought into the light by Albert J Nock in his book titled: The Disadvantages of Being Educated.

An educated person projects an unexamined way of seeing the world, as if standing on the shoulders of giants.

A learned person examines the world, which is his or her bias.

In either case assumptions must be made, at least until such time as the assumption is proven wrong. In one case, the unexamined one, the ridged one, there isn’t any device by which assumptions are challengeable, as in a closed mind, while the other case allows for, is even eager to find, any and all challenges that can aid in making more accurate assumptions.

A person doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel. One can assume that wheels offer a mechanical advantage. One can assume that a calculator will crunch the numbers accurately.

Quote:
What makes someone a criminal?


Is that a good question? Is it worth the effort to find the accurate answer? Is victimization as inevitable as breathing – or death? To whose benefit does it serve to have no true answer?

If the question is worth the cost required to uncover the accurate answer; then I think it is imperative to first define crime. We may now be wandering well beyond the limits of forum protocol.

To return this back to the book I’m going to focus my attention back to this idea that mankind is developing toward a future survivability, something I think is written into Blooms book. If that is so, then it may be a good idea to find out why some people commit crimes, and to entertain the possibility that such a phenomenon could be a genetic mutation, a random experiment testing the validity of natural selection perhaps, and once that measure is assumed to be accurate, only then move on to something more vital.

If the assumption is such that “we are all potential criminals”, which is probably culturally based thinking, not at all scientifically measured thinking, then, having that assumption working, the individual beings working that into a culturally based thinking phenomenon, going viral with it, are less, or more, likely to be aware of potential victimization?

A. Crime is ambigous
B. Not A

Everyone is potentially going to “make a killing”, we are all bad (Machiavelli). How can someone so disposed be able to find friends from amongst all the foes?

If, in fact, it can be determined, with near mathematical certainty, that a specific brain produced by specific genetic instructions is missing specific physical properties, in its arrangement of construction, and such a brain cannot produce thoughts common to other people with other brains, where those thoughts are said to be “empathetic” thoughts, where one person is capable of knowing what another person feels, in some way, and these mutated brains are not so disposed, then such a finding could drive specific human action in a specific direction – such as defense against specific people who have those types of brains.

Or people can continue to follow those types of people, believing their lies, paying for their lies, and do so right up until the human species ends.

A. Some people are born without empathy and they can use that to an advantage so long as the victims remain unaware of their impending victimization.
B. Not A.

That can be seen as an A or B political choice or an economic choice. The general trend in this culture, the one I’ve been born into, is B, a cultural bias.

Is A true?

A. Everyone is equally capable of the worst evil imaginable as is everyone else: “we are all human”.
B. Not A

A is the bias I’ve experienced in my lifetime. I am more than ready to entertain an alternative assumption – and I’ve seen evidence that clearly measures the alternative assumption to be an accurate one – so far.

Quote:
Are criminals only the people whose behavior is considered immoral by the rest of society?


If I am going to offer up an answer, for testing, for validity, for accuracy, for all possible eagerness in knowing any contentious data refuting the answer, and to do so I must return to my definition of crime first – before offering the answer.

Crime is when a person willfully creates a plan by which an innocent victim will be injured and then that person executes the injury of the innocent victim, on purpose, for profit.

Quote:
Are criminals only the people whose behavior is considered immoral by the rest of society?


Society can't consider.

Majority rules, might makes right, and to the victors flow the spoils? If the thing in view (crime) is ambiguous, who does it serve to maintain said ambiguity?

Please note our present situation. People who torture and mass murder, by law, are currently famous (not infamous) as measured by popular opinion such as an election of a president of a nation. Bodies pile up, and not just for fun. The majority didn’t do it. People decide to move bombs to the targets, and bombs are then moved to the targets. Target A is chosen, not target B. It isn’t random, the majority isn’t doing it. Bodies are pilling up, more than a few.

Quote:
Which society?


When “society” is used in my society, my culture, my bias, my meme, the connotation is such that responsibility is gloomed onto said society, which is an egregious error in perception, a confidence scheme from another angle, to whose benefit does such a cultural bias favor? Everyone doesn't share this error.

If the idea is to measure by statistics a group of people who share a specific character trait, a specific thought, a specific action, then all who are thinking that thought, or all who are acting out that action, belong in that group.

All who do not think that thought, and all who do not act out that action, do not belong in that group.

Confusing the ones who belong in that “society” with the ones who do not belong in the “society” benefits criminals in two ways.

The criminals in the society are made to look better when confused with the non-criminals in the society when both are seen as the same thing.

The non-criminals in the society are made to look worse when confused with the criminals when both are seen as the same thing.

Society doesn’t shoot radioactive waste through babies skulls as their mother’s hold them.

A person who discovers that their tax power to purchase (their “money” earnings sent to their elected leaders – who happen to be liars) is invested in aggressive criminal wars for profit may still send that power to those criminals – just because.

That is what a person may choose to do, or not do, as time goes by. Society is merely a statistical angle of view, a measuring device, and a tool. Someone either uses the tool or the tool is not used. What is the use of this tool in this case? What is the goal that the tool user intends to produce?

Quote:
And people do not always consider violence criminal.


Why is the measure of crime ambiguous – forever?

Certainly a criminal isn’t going to see a crime as a crime, not as an INNOCENT victim does. That would be like calling night: day.

Night is night because the sun isn’t shining on that part of the planet.

Who does it serve to have crime remain ambiguous - twilight?

Person A employs violence (and deceit) to extract power from a new born baby, eats it. Person A does that twice.

Three times

1000 times

At some point it becomes obvious to all but a few aware people (who prefer not to know, for some reason), and many who may as yet be unaware (uninterested), that person A is a criminal, and person A doesn’t think that baby eating is a crime.

Why is person A different by that measure (1000 eaten babies)?

Quote:
Soldiers are not seen as criminals.


Can that be any more ambiguous? When a soldier is ordered to commit a crime (injure an innocent person), the solder can decide to follow the order or not.

What does the law say about that situation?

Which law?

Which “society”?

Written laws are more specific, and less ambiguous, than “society” – relative to people, who are individuals. Rocks are specifically rocks, by their composition, no need for interpretation, decision making, judgment calls, etc. Rocks are rocks. Soldiers kill, and one's that can't: die. What is the target? Why is that target, the target?

Quote:
In many parts of the world and sometimes in our own culture violence against women is not seen as criminal.


A woman who is on the receiving end is in or out of that statistical measure called: society?

What is that intended purpose of that society tool here in this case?

Victimized women are seen as bad (for their weakness perhaps).

Victimizing men are seen as less bad (women ask for it).

How convenient is that tool, can it be any more convenient? Someone can invent something more convenient, someone with a desire for it.

Quote:
I argue that in most if not all cases of violence there is some form of claiming territory.


If you are going to argue something, it seems to me, there must be an opponent in mind. Where is this opponent to this argument?

If I ask any criminal to provide an honest and accurate answer as to what he or she desired when the criminal invented and then executed the crime, what was the goal in mind?: I wouldn’t argue about the answer provided. If the answer is accurate, then the answer was honest: who but the criminal would know the accurate answer?

If the honest answer is “territory”, then that is the accurate answer.

Can the answer be any more ambiguous?

Who does it serve to have the ambiguous answer be the answer?

Quote:
War is claiming territory over resources and over the bodies of the people in the culture you are claiming.


What is “war” then from the viewpoint of the people being claimed? Why is “war” one thing, and not two things?

A. Criminal
B. Victim

How can A be, without B?

Quote:
Even in self defense your brain has decided that your life is more valuable than the life who is threatening yours.


If I send another dime (a measure of power) to someone who is threatening me, what happens?

I think that a power struggle angle of view is a most useful one. I think it is how criminals think too.

The topic remains, and to bring it back in clear view I’ll re-read my original post, and return with a comment or two.

If the purpose of sending purchasing power to a collective, a general fund, a pool of power, is defensive, then by all means do so, it seems to me, that is a sound investment, a real return of investment in mind, a moral thing to do, an economic thing, even a political thing to do, to benefit all (all innocent people), and at the expense of no one (except the criminals who would otherwise have ready victims).

If, on the other hand, the purpose of sending purchasing power to that collective, that pot, that voluntary association of defensive individuals, that group of innocent people, turns: then it may be time for repurposing.

I think Howard is seeing that it is time for repurposing. I have yet to read the rest of his book, on account of this current device, this forum. I’m going with the flow of things here. My vested interests include other things to do.



Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:07 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your Non-Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank