The life-type which produced us might be considered a success. Some considerable number of species have honed survival strategies that preserved the lineage for countless generations. Thus, when a creature finally hoved into view - us - that is capable of delineating the entire life-process and the context in which it operates we might expect this creature to fashion an existence that transcends the relentless application of learned or ingrained behaviour - e.g. the learned or ingrained utilisation of particular sources of nourishment - that characterises all other creatures.
Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this? Because the skills fashioned by nature - the speed, strength, ferocity, hearing, seeing etc...all of them based entirely on a chemical arrangement - are all somewhere in nature used to the full. The transfer or the utilisation of energy in, say, the cheetah or the eagle or the rhinocerous or the polar bear cannot be bested. So, if we possess the intelligence to construct a society that manages, or decreases as much as possible, the perils of existence we will eventually utilize that intelligence.
Thus, we may - eventually - hope to categorize and manage the resources needed for our existence; we may eventually understand the entire nature and history and provenance of our existence; we may decide - doubtless after much contest - how we might best manage our existence; we may decide the extent of our obligation to the planet on which we dwell and the creatures who live thereon. I call this Humanisation: the complete application of human intelligence on human existence, and indeed ALL, existence on this planet.
I believe it will happen.
But it will not happen easily - not from the limited viewpoint of an individual human being anyway (though I have to say that in evolutionary-time it will be a rocket!). There are so many parameters - the size of the planet, for example; how long it takes us to colonise it; our very stride-length; our individual need to prevail; our adherence to our group; our susceptability to those with the ability to convince us; the adaptability, or lack of it, of our social forms.........and countless more.
But we are close. We have fashioned the liberal state based on the freedom of the individual. But the very success of this state, the resources it demands to satisfy our needs and our industry, immediately threatens our future. Ideally, we should simply find new resources, ones less destructive of our environment. That will happen - but not immediately and not until after massive disruption. Our genius will not bend itself to the dislocation of discovering and utilising new resources until it is forced upon us. And the dominant economic forces will resist the process all the way.
So, how do we convince our free and empowered citizenry to broaden their horizons? How do we compel them to give the earth some slack? Will they vote - which is their prerogative - for a new age? Or must they be forced to accept one as the waters lap at their feet? How do we move the empowered selves, the BLOATED selves of our time and place?
> The life-type which produced us might be considered a success. Some > considerable number of species have honed survival strategies that > preserved the lineage for countless generations. Thus, when a > creature > finally hoved into view - us - that is capable of delineating the > entire life-process and the context in which it operates we might > expect this creature to fashion an existence that transcends the > relentless application of learned or ingrained behaviour - e.g. the > learned or ingrained utilisation of particular sources of nourishment > - that characterises all other creatures.
> Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this? Because the skills > fashioned by nature - the speed, strength, ferocity, hearing, seeing > etc...all of them based entirely on a chemical arrangement - are all > somewhere in nature used to the full. The transfer or the utilisation > of energy in, say, the cheetah or the eagle or the rhinocerous or the > polar bear cannot be bested. So, if we possess the intelligence to > construct a society that manages, or decreases as much as possible, > the perils of existence we will eventually utilize that intelligence.
> Thus, we may - eventually - hope to categorize and manage the > resources needed for our existence; we may eventually understand the > entire nature and history and provenance of our existence; we may > decide - doubtless after much contest - how we might best manage our > existence; we may decide the extent of our obligation to the planet > on > which we dwell and the creatures who live thereon. I call this > Humanisation: the complete application of human intelligence on human > existence, and indeed ALL, existence on this planet.
> I believe it will happen.
> But it will not happen easily - not from the limited viewpoint of an > individual human being anyway (though I have to say that in > evolutionary-time it will be a rocket!). There are so many parameters > - the size of the planet, for example; how long it takes us to > colonise it; our very stride-length; our individual need to prevail; > our adherence to our group; our susceptability to those with the > ability to convince us; the adaptability, or lack of it, of our > social > forms.........and countless more.
> But we are close. We have fashioned the liberal state based on the > freedom of the individual. But the very success of this state, the > resources it demands to satisfy our needs and our industry, > immediately threatens our future. Ideally, we should simply find new > resources, ones less destructive of our environment. That will happen > - but not immediately and not until after massive disruption. Our > genius will not bend itself to the dislocation of discovering and > utilising new resources until it is forced upon us. And the dominant > economic forces will resist the process all the way.
> So, how do we convince our free and empowered citizenry to broaden > their horizons? How do we compel them to give the earth some slack? > Will they vote - which is their prerogative - for a new age? Or must > they be forced to accept one as the waters lap at their feet? How do > we move the empowered selves, the BLOATED selves of our time and > place?
> Joseph Humming
That's great, but what, exactly, is your point? I can't really find it among the dross. Didn't your English teachers impress on you the need for being concise and expressing yourself clearly? What? No? I see....
(There may be some sort of message in there about needing to find alternative sources of energy [I couldn't be sure], but we all pretty much know that anyways.)
On Jul 4, 2:25 am, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
> Joseph Humming wrote:
> [snip blather]
> > Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this?
> The parentheses on my keyboard are accessed by shift-9 and shift-0. Are > yours broken?
Thanks for the lesson.
> "(Why) should we expect this?" doesn't make sense, although it would be > unfair to this sentence to distinguish it form the rest of your screed.
I say in the preceding paragraph that we should expect this creature - us - to fashion an existence that transcends the relentless application of learned or ingrained behaviour. It is a large claim. I merely seek to justify it somewhat - which I think I am required to do. Thus the question makes perfect sense. I also think the answer makes sense. The essence of my entire "screed" is that our intelligence will eventually find expression in an intelligent society. The only issue is whether we will proceed intelligently towards such a society or whether we must first experience a cataclysm of some sort.
> Are you able to say in one or two sentences what the point of your original > posting is? I read it twice and I still have no idea.
> David
Thanks, David. The essence of what I am trying to say is that our intelligence will eventually find expression in an intelligent society, one that transcends in many respects the animal struggle for existence. I believe that, notwithstanding appearances, we are currently close to such a society. Our global reach, our knowledge, our technology and our sense of the rights due to us prompts me to make such a claim. But crises loom in the form of resources, fuel, warming, population etc. The only issue is whether we will proceed intelligently towards a managed global society or whether we must first experience a cataclysm of some sort. Joseph Humming
> > The life-type which produced us might be considered a success. Some > > considerable number of species have honed survival strategies that > > preserved the lineage for countless generations. Thus, when a > > creature > > finally hoved into view - us - that is capable of delineating the > > entire life-process and the context in which it operates we might > > expect this creature to fashion an existence that transcends the > > relentless application of learned or ingrained behaviour - e.g. the > > learned or ingrained utilisation of particular sources of nourishment > > - that characterises all other creatures.
> > Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this? Because the skills > > fashioned by nature - the speed, strength, ferocity, hearing, seeing > > etc...all of them based entirely on a chemical arrangement - are all > > somewhere in nature used to the full. The transfer or the utilisation > > of energy in, say, the cheetah or the eagle or the rhinocerous or the > > polar bear cannot be bested. So, if we possess the intelligence to > > construct a society that manages, or decreases as much as possible, > > the perils of existence we will eventually utilize that intelligence.
> > Thus, we may - eventually - hope to categorize and manage the > > resources needed for our existence; we may eventually understand the > > entire nature and history and provenance of our existence; we may > > decide - doubtless after much contest - how we might best manage our > > existence; we may decide the extent of our obligation to the planet > > on > > which we dwell and the creatures who live thereon. I call this > > Humanisation: the complete application of human intelligence on human > > existence, and indeed ALL, existence on this planet.
> > I believe it will happen.
> > But it will not happen easily - not from the limited viewpoint of an > > individual human being anyway (though I have to say that in > > evolutionary-time it will be a rocket!). There are so many parameters > > - the size of the planet, for example; how long it takes us to > > colonise it; our very stride-length; our individual need to prevail; > > our adherence to our group; our susceptability to those with the > > ability to convince us; the adaptability, or lack of it, of our > > social > > forms.........and countless more.
> > But we are close. We have fashioned the liberal state based on the > > freedom of the individual. But the very success of this state, the > > resources it demands to satisfy our needs and our industry, > > immediately threatens our future. Ideally, we should simply find new > > resources, ones less destructive of our environment. That will happen > > - but not immediately and not until after massive disruption. Our > > genius will not bend itself to the dislocation of discovering and > > utilising new resources until it is forced upon us. And the dominant > > economic forces will resist the process all the way.
> > So, how do we convince our free and empowered citizenry to broaden > > their horizons? How do we compel them to give the earth some slack? > > Will they vote - which is their prerogative - for a new age? Or must > > they be forced to accept one as the waters lap at their feet? How do > > we move the empowered selves, the BLOATED selves of our time and > > place?
> > Joseph Humming
> That's great, but what, exactly, is your point? I can't really find it > among the dross. Didn't your English teachers impress on you the need for > being concise and expressing yourself clearly? What? No? I see....
> (There may be some sort of message in there about needing to find > alternative sources of energy [I couldn't be sure], but we all pretty much > know that anyways.)
I too would welcome an executive summary. But I think Joseph is arguing that humankind, unlike other species, can respond intelligently not only to our individual present circumstances, our physical environment and our neighbours, but plan out a rational relationship to enjoy (in a technical sense) the resources of the world most fully. Because the modern, clued-in self is the empowered self. But it is also the bloated self. This may refer to greed, to disinformation overload, or to digestive transit with the modern Western diet. There is a yoghurt product advertised as good for that, but I disagree with their nutritional labelling policy.
P.S. Google Groups seems to dislike something I'm trying to send, so I'm trimming down the "he said" lines at the start - in the past it's been that.
Uh uh - what it is, they logged me out while I wasn't looking. "An error was encountered while trying to post, please try again later." You wouldn't care to tell me what the error /is/, any time?
> > The life-type which produced us might be considered a success. Some > > considerable number of species have honed survival strategies that > > preserved the lineage for countless generations. Thus, when a > > creature > > finally hoved into view - us - that is capable of delineating the > > entire life-process and the context in which it operates we might > > expect this creature to fashion an existence that transcends the > > relentless application of learned or ingrained behaviour - e.g. the > > learned or ingrained utilisation of particular sources of nourishment > > - that characterises all other creatures.
> > Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this? Because the skills > > fashioned by nature - the speed, strength, ferocity, hearing, seeing > > etc...all of them based entirely on a chemical arrangement - are all > > somewhere in nature used to the full. The transfer or the utilisation > > of energy in, say, the cheetah or the eagle or the rhinocerous or the > > polar bear cannot be bested. So, if we possess the intelligence to > > construct a society that manages, or decreases as much as possible, > > the perils of existence we will eventually utilize that intelligence.
> > Thus, we may - eventually - hope to categorize and manage the > > resources needed for our existence; we may eventually understand the > > entire nature and history and provenance of our existence; we may > > decide - doubtless after much contest - how we might best manage our > > existence; we may decide the extent of our obligation to the planet > > on > > which we dwell and the creatures who live thereon. I call this > > Humanisation: the complete application of human intelligence on human > > existence, and indeed ALL, existence on this planet.
> > I believe it will happen.
> > But it will not happen easily - not from the limited viewpoint of an > > individual human being anyway (though I have to say that in > > evolutionary-time it will be a rocket!). There are so many parameters > > - the size of the planet, for example; how long it takes us to > > colonise it; our very stride-length; our individual need to prevail; > > our adherence to our group; our susceptability to those with the > > ability to convince us; the adaptability, or lack of it, of our > > social > > forms.........and countless more.
> > But we are close. We have fashioned the liberal state based on the > > freedom of the individual. But the very success of this state, the > > resources it demands to satisfy our needs and our industry, > > immediately threatens our future. Ideally, we should simply find new > > resources, ones less destructive of our environment. That will happen > > - but not immediately and not until after massive disruption. Our > > genius will not bend itself to the dislocation of discovering and > > utilising new resources until it is forced upon us. And the dominant > > economic forces will resist the process all the way.
> > So, how do we convince our free and empowered citizenry to broaden > > their horizons? How do we compel them to give the earth some slack? > > Will they vote - which is their prerogative - for a new age? Or must > > they be forced to accept one as the waters lap at their feet? How do > > we move the empowered selves, the BLOATED selves of our time and > > place?
> > Joseph Humming
> That's great, but what, exactly, is your point? I can't really find it > among the dross. Didn't your English teachers impress on you the need for > being concise and expressing yourself clearly? What? No? I see....
> (There may be some sort of message in there about needing to find > alternative sources of energy [I couldn't be sure], but we all pretty much > know that anyways.)
Aw, be nice, Mike!
The essence of what I clearly failed to say is that our intelligence will eventually find expression in an intelligent society, one that transcends in many respects the animal struggle for existence. I believe that, notwithstanding appearances, we are currently close to such a society. Our recent global reach, our communications, our newly acquired knowledge, our technology and our sense of the rights due to us prompts me to make such a claim. But crises loom in the form of resources, fuel, warming, population etc. The only issue is whether we will proceed intelligently towards a managed global society or whether we must first experience a cataclysm of some sort. My fear is that we will not easily yield our recent empowerment, our sense that we have the right to do whatever we want regardless of long-term consequences. Hence the bloated-self motif.
And, yes, we need new sources of energy - but I never mentioned those. Ciao
>> Are you able to say in one or two sentences what the point of your original >> posting is? I read it twice and I still have no idea.
>> David > Thanks, David. The essence of what I am trying to say is that our > intelligence will eventually find expression in an intelligent > society, one that transcends in many respects the animal struggle for > existence. I believe that, notwithstanding appearances, we are > currently close to such a society. Our global reach, our knowledge, > our technology and our sense of the rights due to us prompts me to > make such a claim. But crises loom in the form of resources, fuel, > warming, population etc. The only issue is whether we will proceed > intelligently towards a managed global > society or whether we must first experience a cataclysm of some > sort.
That's the thing I can't stand the most about Marxists, they'll write an entire book where a sentence will suffice.
>> That's great, but what, exactly, is your point? I can't really find it >> among the dross. Didn't your English teachers impress on you the need for >> being concise and expressing yourself clearly? What? No? I see....
>> (There may be some sort of message in there about needing to find >
