Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
For Spinoza, there are two kinds of emotions: passive emotions and active emotions. Passive emotions are reactions to external circumstances; it’s what simply happens to us when external circumstances cause us to react to it in a certain way. For example, if I see a Lion in front of me, my emotional reaction would be fear. The existence of the Lion in front of me, including my perception of it, causes me to be in the emotional state of fear. This makes me into a passive being. However, on the other hand, an active emotion derives not from external circumstances, but rather it derives from the power of understanding. This power of understanding is our natural capacity, by exercising this natural capacity we exercise the power that gives rise to joy, which empowers us to live well. The difference is that with the active emotions it follows from exercising our natural capacity to understand ourselves and Nature, whereas with passive emotions it follows from external circumstances having power over us.
RE: "What baboons teach us, is If they're able to, within one generation, transform what are supposed to be textbook social systems sort of engraved in stone, we don't have any excuse when we say there is a certain inevitability in human social systems."
It seems that the impetus for change within social systems is often a consequence of tragedy. Hopefully humans can learn to rely less on such a motivator.
Why hierarchy creates a destructive force within the human psyche (by dr. Robert
Sapolsky)
Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:54 am wrote:
The primary technique used and prime directive of power mongers is to keep the general population driven primarily by passive emotions. [/b]This ensures the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential. Because it is a threat to the integrity of ones personal identity to accept that one is largely driven by programmed passive response triggers, it can be difficult to identify sources that impact ones own belief set.
Cultural godfathers support generation of passive emotions because that is an efficient marker for ones willingness to submit to and support the current vertical authority distribution system.
We could however alter our conceptual structures in a way that encourages development and practice with expressing active emotions. If we so chose, we could recognize that coercion bankrupts the human spirit. Then we might at least have a chance for finding our way to a horizontal authority distribution system.
Sounder » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:19 am wrote:Our situation is such that the narratives that drive our psyches are still a totally top down affair. The uber-narrative of a restricted space for the expression of ‘divinity’ (or intellectual acuity, for you secular types) promotes pride, pompousness and a general lack of respect towards ones fellow man.
I live with the good fortune of being surrounded by kind people.
Sounder » Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:24 pm wrote:C2W?, I wonder if you might expand on the nature of this mistake.
I ask to avoid unnecessary exposure of my ignorance and to have a check on whether my thoughts on the matter relate to what you are trying to get across, or instead are merely reflecting my mental obsession of the week.
Thanks
Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:54 am wrote:
The primary technique used and prime directive of power mongers is to keep the general population driven primarily by passive emotions. [/b]This ensures the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential. Because it is a threat to the integrity of ones personal identity to accept that one is largely driven by programmed passive response triggers, it can be difficult to identify sources that impact ones own belief set.
Can you provide some concrete examples?
Cultural godfathers support generation of passive emotions because that is an efficient marker for ones willingness to submit to and support the current vertical authority distribution system.
Can you identify a few people you consider examples of "cultural godfathers"?
We could however alter our conceptual structures in a way that encourages development and practice with expressing active emotions. If we so chose, we could recognize that coercion bankrupts the human spirit. Then we might at least have a chance for finding our way to a horizontal authority distribution system.
I don't disagree with this in principle. But in practice I suspect the planet will be a hollowed out cinder and we will be on the verge of extinction before that happens on a large enough scale to matter and by then it won't matter except as a foundation for whatever future those survivors might try to build.
You're an idealist.
I think the baboons are just more evolved than us in some respects and we are just fatally flawed creatures. That's not resignation or apathy. It's a desire to see things as they are.
Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:I wrote:Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:54 am wrote:
The primary technique used and prime directive of power mongers is to keep the general population driven primarily by passive emotions. [/b]This ensures the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential. Because it is a threat to the integrity of ones personal identity to accept that one is largely driven by programmed passive response triggers, it can be difficult to identify sources that impact ones own belief set.
Can you provide some concrete examples?
Of sources that generate passive emotions?
Let’s see, how about religion, rationalism and materialism, really any totalizing belief set that willfully restricts areas of potential inquiry.
Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:I wrote:sounder wrote:Cultural godfathers support generation of passive emotions because that is an efficient marker for ones willingness to submit to and support the current vertical authority distribution system.
Can you identify a few people you consider examples of "cultural godfathers"?
No need to get personal, but you asked so it seems like Rockefeller, Edward Bernays and James Randi would qualify. In general though, ‘cultural godfathers’ are those that make ‘laws’ to oppress the poor and benefit the rich.
Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:I wrote:sounder wrote:We could however alter our conceptual structures in a way that encourages development and practice with expressing active emotions. If we so chose, we could recognize that coercion bankrupts the human spirit. Then we might at least have a chance for finding our way to a horizontal authority distribution system.
I don't disagree with this in principle. But in practice I suspect the planet will be a hollowed out cinder and we will be on the verge of extinction before that happens on a large enough scale to matter and by then it won't matter except as a foundation for whatever future those survivors might try to build.
It is probably the case that you see the coercive element as being more fundamental to human nature than is kindness or altruism. Whereas I consider that we are ‘hardwired’ for both coercion and altruism, we depend on context (software) to determine which option will tend to dominate.
Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:I wrote: You're an idealist.
You may be right, or at least I see how you may take me to be that way.
But in my mind I am a formal materialist.
Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:I wrote: I think the baboons are just more evolved than us in some respects and we are just fatally flawed creatures. That's not resignation or apathy. It's a desire to see things as they are.
You probably can admit though that taking humans as being ‘fatally flawed creatures’ would tend to promote resignation.
Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:I share your desire to see things as they are, and I also think we have a boatload of misapprehensions to work through before that happens to any wide degree. It does bother me though that the desire to see things as they are, has so often in the past, produced totalizing ideologies where internal consistency is prized much more highly than are inconvenient facts.
brainpanhandler » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:32 pm wrote:
I don't think we are hardwired for much of anything at all. Maybe a fear of heights and snakes and how to suckle. Perhaps swimming. (I love the aquatic ape hypothesis). Within the context of the collapse of civilization and all the life sustaining aspects of it we are entirely dependent on our choices will be survival choices.
Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:I wrote: You're an idealist.
You may be right, or at least I see how you may take me to be that way.
But in my mind I am a formal materialist.
We all get to call ourselves whatever we like.
Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:I wrote: I think the baboons are just more evolved than us in some respects and we are just fatally flawed creatures. That's not resignation or apathy. It's a desire to see things as they are.
You probably can admit though that taking humans as being ‘fatally flawed creatures’ would tend to promote resignation.
Sure. That's why I felt to need to qualify my statement. I guess it's a matter of emphasis and my mood. Ask me tomorrow and I might say Bollocks to "fatally flawed creatures". But if we're not fatally flawed creatures then we got a lot of splainin' to do or at least maybe more than we would otherwise. Programming? original sin? What effect does the judeo/christian belief that we are all sinners have on culture and on the individual psyches of the adherents to that belief? How far back do the "cultural godfathers" go?
Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:I share your desire to see things as they are, and I also think we have a boatload of misapprehensions to work through before that happens to any wide degree. It does bother me though that the desire to see things as they are, has so often in the past, produced totalizing ideologies where internal consistency is prized much more highly than are inconvenient facts.
brainpanhandler » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:56 am wrote:Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:54 am wrote:
The primary technique used and prime directive of power mongers is to keep the general population driven primarily by passive emotions. [/b]This ensures the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential. Because it is a threat to the integrity of ones personal identity to accept that one is largely driven by programmed passive response triggers, it can be difficult to identify sources that impact ones own belief set.
Can you provide some concrcete examples?
brainpanhandler » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:56 am wrote:Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:54 am wrote:
... in practice I suspect the planet wil be a hollowed out cinder and we will be on the verge of extinction before that happens on a large enough scale to matter and by then it won't matter except as a foundation for whatever future those survivors might try to build.
You're an idealist. I think the baboons are just more evolved than us in some respects and we are just fatally flawed creatures. That's not resignation or apathy. It's a desire to see things as they are.
What constitutes a "programmed passive response trigger”? How does that particular programmed passive response trigger restrict areas of potential inquiry and/or "ensure the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential."?
It seems to me that the flaws are an inconvenient fact. Because they are. Right? So if you're saying that what bothers you about the desire to admit to them ("see things the way they are") is that it hasn't yet led to a system that succeeds in ameliorating them, that makes sense.
But you seem to be saying: The problem with the desire to see things as they are -- ie, to identify, reject and renounce destructive flaws -- is that it leads to systems that do that.
You can't be, though. So I guess I just don't understand which inconvenient facts you have in mind. Expand?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests