I would like to take this quote from the Foucault entry at Wikipedia a step further: we have internalized some deemed relevant observer and are therefore unaware we are acting as if we were observed. We experience we are free: not observed, judged, potentially liable for thoughts and actions outside what the observer deems appropriate.
In writing this, were you doing so freely ? :-) Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
like you, I won't know until I can find a plateau where I can transcend and include the perceiver/thinker
see
The case for exploration of the interior domain, which is at the root of addressing all unsustainable strivings, jitter, rumble and noise, offers a clarifying view: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=9wX_W1BB_0M
in the mean time we don't have to be hindered in our make do efforts to reduce suffering. Imo our prime directive, until proven otherwise. A sense of suffering is what we all share and which we can experience without intermediate concepts, institutions, interpretations, conferences, reports
Re Foucault, I prefer Chomsky, see the end of their debate:
FOUCAULT: If you like, I will be a little bit Nietzschean about this; in other words, it seems to me that the idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power or as a weapon against that power. But it seems to me that, in any case, the notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as justification for it. CHOMSKY: I don't agree with that. FOUCAULT: And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice. CHOMSKY: Well, here I really disagree. I think there is some sort of an absolute basis--if you press me too hard I'll be in trouble, because I can't sketch it out-ultimately residing in fundamental human qualities, in terms of which a "real" notion of justice is grounded. I think it's too hasty to characterise our existing systems of justice as merely systems of class oppression; I don't think that they are that. I think that they embody systems of class oppression and elements of other kinds of oppression, but they also embody a kind of groping towards the true humanly, valuable concepts of justice and decency and love and kindness and sympathy, which I think are real. And I think that in any future society, which will, of course, never be the perfect society, we'll have such concepts again, which we hope, will come closer to incorporating a defence of fundamental human needs, including such needs as those for solidarity and sympathy and whatever, but will probably still reflect in some manner the inequities and the elements of oppression of the existing society. http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
CHOMSKY: I don't agree with that.
FOUCAULT: And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice.
CHOMSKY: Well, here I really disagree. I think there is some sort of an absolute basis--if you press me too hard I'll be in trouble, because I can't sketch it out-ultimately residing in fundamental human qualities, in terms of which a "real" notion of justice is grounded.
I think it's too hasty to characterise our existing systems of justice as merely systems of class oppression; I don't think that they are that. I think that they embody systems of class oppression and elements of other kinds of oppression, but they also embody a kind of groping towards the true humanly, valuable concepts of justice and decency and love and kindness and sympathy, which I think are real.
And I think that in any future society, which will, of course, never be the perfect society, we'll have such concepts again, which we hope, will come closer to incorporating a defence of fundamental human needs, including such needs as those for solidarity and sympathy and whatever, but will probably still reflect in some manner the inequities and the elements of oppression of the existing society.
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
Re suffering, like F, "I will be a little bit Nietzschean about this" - a sense of suffering isn't prior to "concepts, institutions, interpretations" as with the cogito of Descartes. Nietzsche said:
When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking--that I KNOW what thinking is. http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/10/18/55252/796
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/10/18/55252/796
or that I know what suffering is. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
You know, when Jonathan was a bit over 2 years old he would already display a basic understanding of fairness in that he would object to me doing things I didn't let him do such as stand on the road instead or on the curb while waiting for a bus.
So there is something of an universal sense of fairness and a classless society would probably still have a need for a concept of justice. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
I think Foucault is absurd to suggest that because "justice" is used in bourgeois society (but developed long before that in very different cultures) it is inevitably so contaminated that it cannot be used. He uses the excuse of lack of time to avoid answering Chomsky.
Marx was enough of a realist to know that people will not become angels even in a communist society. I'm sure he saw it more as a continuing process, so concepts like justice would be necessary. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
There are also experiments which show that violence, cheating and exploitation happen between animals.
The opposites are innate and probably can't be reconciled - but they can be conditioned in one direction or another.
What makes bullshit so interesting is that it's a semantic substitute for personal violence which doesn't just hide the act but also confuses the victim.
Instead of stealing something by overpowering someone, the first stage of abstraction is to hire a lawyer or accountant as a 'clean' enforcer, and get the job done with threatened rather than actual violence.
The second is to create a belief in the victim that the crime is their fault.
Workers in the US, and increasingly in the UK, have to survive under a constant barrage of books like Who Moved My Cheese which are designed to make them feel personally responsible for outcomes defined and managed by corporate ideologies which are hostile to their welfare.
A classless society with a sense of innate justice would probably have to propagate fair morality using similar parables - the abstract concept of justice on its own doesn't seem to be enough to do the job.
observing animals, it is quite apparent what we have to master in our our own animal nature, if we are to transcend mere animality and move to higher ground.
they can absolute bastards to each other, given half a chance, and what's worse, take that default to be entirely normal, and if not morally 'right', at least reality-based.
they don't call it 'the law of the jungle' for nothing...
that's the nuts'n'bolts of it, the raw material, we get to work with, and boy is there a lot of work to be done if we ever want to make a 'civilised' world with humans in it, as humans are the most intelligent and resourceful beasts, and left to their sheer animality, all you have is a Hobbsian dystopia, or ruanda writ large...rape, kill, steal and torture.
all religions try to address this, and largely make it worse, i think because as soon as you set up a taboo, you create a counterforce that wants to break it.
animals can also 'break pattern' and do astoundingly noble things, and their unintellectuality precludes them from being ever truly diabolical.
unfortunately humans are less limited in that way, :( ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
Uh, we are animals, so anything we do is part of our animal nature. The idea that there is a separation (a duality if you will) between humans and animals is one of the most dangerous that exists, part of the idiot belief that humans and "nature" are somehow separate things, as if humans are unnatural in some way or don't function within "nature".
We have a potential for rational planning and for modelling fairly complex outcomes without having to live them first. Occasionally we're even smart enough to let this take priority over instinctive responses, which aren't good at the long term.
We also have persistent culture, which makes it less necessary to relearn everything about the world from scratch with each new generation.
They're limited abilities, but not trivial.
If you want to think of us as animals 2.0, fine, but then other animals range from 1.0 to 2.0 on a continuous scale.
For humans, persistent culture is very much non-trivial.
We spend at least five and sometimes more than twenty years learning how we're supposed to be human and being taught what previous humans have done so that we - literally - don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Human cumulative memory reaches back thousands of years. Animal memory never lasts more than a generation.
To a certain extent, these are discrete steps, not a continuous gradation, so there is a sense in which 'Animals 2.0' is an appropriate metaphor. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Humans don't have a venomous bite. Does that make spiders and snakes Animals 2.0?
You have to have the ability to transmit behaviour between individuals. It shouldn't be surprising that animals can do this but every time it's proved by research for a particular species it makes big headlines. Maybe a lot of what passes for "instinct" is actually cultural transmission. The experience of releasing animals bred in captivity out in the wild should provide a data point.
But there is a stage beyond "transmitted behaviour" and that is "transmitted information". There's no reason to believe that some animals can't have a "concept" of the world, but can they transmit it to others in their group? That would be in the same 'Animals 2.' (maybe 'Culture 2.' is better) class as oral-transmission human cultures.
And then we get to the production of material artifacts to supplement memory - is that 'Culture 3.*' ? A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
There's no reason to believe that some animals can't have a "concept" of the world, but can they transmit it to others in their group?
i believe they can, but it's anecdotal. when i took my horse to a pro stables for 3 months during training, he was a totally good natured animal, more pet than worker.
he learned to work while there, for sure, but he also learned something else, a spirit of disrespect for humans he had never exhibited before, a flare of rebellion, a vein of crankiness.
i felt it was worth it, so i tried to compensate, but it distressed me, and i eventually brought him back home a month before the trainer thought appropriate, because i was fed up with the personality disintegration.
after a month of a lot of personal attention, grooming and treats, he regained his original mellow friendliness, as i had hoped, (and had faith in, because his early childhood, his first 2 years were as close to idyllic as could be, and that's why i chose him, not just because the breed has a rep for toughness, resilience, intelligence and long, healthy lives.)
so the early conditioning is always the bedrock, and has the most power, but animals can encourage each other to change their attitudes, at least it sure seemed that way, though i'm aware you could probably never prove it 'scientifically'! ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
Define "persistent culture".
Some webs are more interesting and bigger than others.
Animals don't have persistent culture, and they particularly don't have or externalised symbolic communication tools which can maintain information for generations.
If true, you need to present "objective" evidence refuting several decades of research by biologists, at least, into mammal psychology --which I understand to be any type of socialability, or interaction within one species group, so classified as "family". Primatologists actively pursue politcal agenda describing what is "natural" altruism, what is "natural" competition.
Jury's still out on cold-blooded species, excepting insects for some reasons that I'm not prepared to reiterate.
If "culture" (physical artifacts) and "externalised symbolic communication tools" (i.e. language performance) are either not evident or incomprehensible to human researchers, how will humans justify and validate genetic fatalism "which can maintain information for generations"? That is, material or axiomatic determinants of individual (unique) and collective (social) of life, not death, or survival if you will.
"Information" is a generic title of "instinct," itself a stream of data subject to physical law as we understand them. Presently the human scope of possible expressions include behavioral (psychological) and pathological (viral, bacterial, unknown degenerative agent) outcomes, you know, at any given point in an individual life cycle.
I don't see how many people are given by experts rationales beyond faith to act according to a morally positive end. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
there is a 'however' though, and that is humans have become de-natured, have often lost touch with their animality, and have repressed and bypassed so many attributes, that in other times and cultures were perfectly acceptable in polite society, but now, by some historical quirk, fall into the taboo basket.
i'm not going 'noble savage' on you, just pointing out that we have a case here for evolution being a process of loops that regress as well as progress.
some are ahead of their times, some behind, some get so far ahead they become almost numb to the fact they have a body at all! as a massage therapist, i've seen way too much of this...
those simple folk who live pretty much as they did for yonks are much more in touch with their bodies, and with them there is really much less distinction, they 'own' their bodies in much the same direct, unaffected way that animals do.
i could start on about anglo disease here, and its exploitational, entitled and exceptionalist attitudes to animals ( which pretty much decree we separate ourselves from the animal kingdom conceptually in order to reduce it to units of expendable protein-fuel or tame cuddle-toys, all the while fetishising the last polar bear/panda survivors of the habitat humans are so busy destroying etc), but that's enough bloviating from me for tonight!
you are so right about just how dangerous this cognitive schism is, i'm glad you pointed that out.
we are gloriously animal indeed, and to forget that is to invite all manner of mayhem to our door. in ommitting to celebrate that reality, we became the cancerous, maladapted, warped, weakened and disharmonic species we see abusing the planet daily, strong, in charge, perfectly 'rational', and totally demented...
there, i've probably set you up for one of your witty one-liners you like to reply to my comments with!
sorry about the mr. mustard joke i laid on you a couple of years ago. i never apologised for it, and looking back it was teh stoopid, really immature and dumb....duh. like you said 'high school'...
and..rude. my bad. ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
Is the jungle a very nasty place? It seems that animals provide more to each other there than take away. Do they have "tragedies of commons"? Does anyone bother to monopolize resources, push a "competitive advantage" to the maximum? Who is literally struggling there?
There seems to be a view in some quarters that in commerce there is only a ruthless `law of the jungle' to be observed. Yet this is a much-abused metaphor, because a jungle is in fact a vivid example of an immensely complex natural system, in which the various parts survive - and thrive - as much through co-operation as competition. If we really lived by the law of the jungle, properly understood, then we would treasure diversity in our economy, reward collaboration, build skills to manage complexity, and maintain all those subtle checks and balances that keep any economy, or eco-system, vibrant and healthy.
A video of Prince Charles speaking this is here.
But Mig's point was that his son had quickly learned to generalize the concept of fairness, a very basic and useful one (to defend one's rights and needs) apparently without the need for parables. We don't just learn "the abstract concept of justice" in isolation, we learn it through noting its applications in use in a "form of life" and generalising from them - cf Wittgenstein:
" ... the term `language-game' is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a form of life" (PI 23). What enables language to function and therefore must be accepted as "given" is precisely forms of life. In Wittgenstein's terms, agreement is required "not only in definitions but also (queer as this may sound) in judgments" (PI 242), and this is "not agreement in opinions but in form of life" (PI 241). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#Lan
" ... the term `language-game' is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a form of life" (PI 23). What enables language to function and therefore must be accepted as "given" is precisely forms of life. In Wittgenstein's terms, agreement is required "not only in definitions but also (queer as this may sound) in judgments" (PI 242), and this is "not agreement in opinions but in form of life" (PI 241).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#Lan
This also reflects Chomsky's view about human creativity and the use of language (against the behaviourist view) discussed in the debate:
But when I speak of creativity, I'm not attributing to the concept the notion of value that is normal when we speak of creativity. That is, when you speak of scientific creativity, you're speaking, properly, of the achievements of a Newton. But in the context in which I have been speaking about creativity, it's a normal human act. I'm speaking of the kind of creativity that any child demonstrates when he's able to come to grips with a new situation: to describe it properly, react to it properly, tell one something about it, think about it in a new fashion for him and so on. I think it's appropriate to call those acts creative, but of course without thinking of those acts as being the acts of a Newton. In fact it may very well be true that creativity in the arts or the sciences, that which goes beyond the normal, may really involve properties of, well, I would also say of human nature, which may not exist fully developed in the mass of mankind, and may not constitute part of the normal creativity of everyday life. http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
I'm speaking of the kind of creativity that any child demonstrates when he's able to come to grips with a new situation: to describe it properly, react to it properly, tell one something about it, think about it in a new fashion for him and so on. I think it's appropriate to call those acts creative, but of course without thinking of those acts as being the acts of a Newton.
In fact it may very well be true that creativity in the arts or the sciences, that which goes beyond the normal, may really involve properties of, well, I would also say of human nature, which may not exist fully developed in the mass of mankind, and may not constitute part of the normal creativity of everyday life.
While some ideas might well need parables to reinforce them, fairness is clearly important for our self-defence - as with Mig's son and his rights. But accepting it entails that we acknowledge the rights of others too. So there is less need for reinforcement of this basic "language game" in any human "form of life". Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
The parables are there to reinforce and condition behaviour, not to teach it in the first place.
Parables are trite, but their social effect isn't trivial - it's interesting how many of the persuasive emails that wingers send out are framed as parables. Self-help and motivational guides rely heavily on them too. For example:
LiveLeak.com - About Socialism...
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & the ad More..dition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum. Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?" She replied, "Mary is barely getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies. "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over." Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA. The daughter visibly shocked by her father's suggestion angrily fired back, that wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!" The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party"
This is a non sequitur as an objective argument, but narrative logic is much looser - which is why you can get away with this kind of twisty rhetoric and still appear persuasive.
It also carries at least two moral payloads. One is that you don't share hard work, and the other is that socialists are irresponsible and immature party people. They're not serious, self-sacrificing and adult, and don't understand why hard work matters. (And they'll probably want a bail-out at some point.)
If you're not inclined to critical thinking, I suspect it's quite effective - or at least more effective than (say) a graph pointing out that GDP rises under Democratic presidents and falls under Republican ones. Or that you'll be $476 better off under Obama's tax plan than McCain's.
