Tweet
Might as well do the rest too...
? Giving up something dear for the greater good is not a self-destructive moral action? I would think that would be by definition self-destructive to some extent.
Sounds like a semantic objection, but fine.
You assume, of course, that the instincts are or should be regarded as something separate from the mind. See: Freud, Sigmund. Id, Ego, Superego, all that fun stuff. As a practical matter, what are you suggesting? The negation of the superego, doing whatever the hell our instincts suggest, or what?
Even assuming it's plausible, that does not sound like a good thing. Xenophobia and aggression are natural instincts too. But I don't think it plausible. Do you honestly believe people feel guilty about improper thoughts because of dualism? It doesn't follow at all. If anything, I would think a non-dualistic person would feel his/her whole self implicated by negative feelings. Not that I think, "Oh, my brain just thought something bad!" Wait a minute, what about Buddhism? They explicitly believe that suffering is caused by improper mental activity ("grasping," or what-have-you), and just as explicitly reject not only boundaries within the self but boundaries within the whole universe. Everything's just interconnected energies to them.
Yes, it's great fun to stack and re-stack ideas into neat conceptual boxes. That's why PoMo is so popular in some circles. Ultimately, though, it doesn't say anything about reality. It just shows your level of skill and interest in idea-stacking.
Some folks reinvent the wheel. You just reinvented "ladder theory" ( www.laddertheory.com ). The difference is that the wheel is useful and not born of cynicism or spite.
Originally posted by aneeshm
The second point:
While I was reading up on pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures (thankfully, I am myself from one, so I find it much easier to switch mental culture-frames), I came across a very different view of life and the world. The mind was not the sole definition of "person". The locus of individual identity lay as much in the body as in the mind, and instincts and impulses were not within the domain of judgement, but actions were. That is, a person was moral based on what he did, not on what he felt. So a person giving up something dear to him for what he thought was a greater cause was a morally admirable act precisely because of the difficulty of the action involved, not because of obedience to some God-given commandment. Here, there were no self-destructive moral actions.
The second point:
While I was reading up on pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures (thankfully, I am myself from one, so I find it much easier to switch mental culture-frames), I came across a very different view of life and the world. The mind was not the sole definition of "person". The locus of individual identity lay as much in the body as in the mind, and instincts and impulses were not within the domain of judgement, but actions were. That is, a person was moral based on what he did, not on what he felt. So a person giving up something dear to him for what he thought was a greater cause was a morally admirable act precisely because of the difficulty of the action involved, not because of obedience to some God-given commandment. Here, there were no self-destructive moral actions.
Also, these people did not have what is commonly referred to as an "integrated view of body and mind", because there was nothing to integrate - the mind-body dichotomy, or separation, even if it existed in some small form, was never anything significant anyway.
The third part:
It seems to me that most people would do better to adopt the second view of human nature - the one in which you don't have to worry about an integrated body and mind because you never separate them at all. You don't have to worry about being "in touch" with your instincts, because you know that you are your instincts, there is no need to speak of them as dichotomous.
It seems to me that most people would do better to adopt the second view of human nature - the one in which you don't have to worry about an integrated body and mind because you never separate them at all. You don't have to worry about being "in touch" with your instincts, because you know that you are your instincts, there is no need to speak of them as dichotomous.
This gets rid of the fundamental weakening contradiction at the core of most of modern culture - the cultural and moral, yet still artificial and damaging, duality between body and mind. It also gets rid of the anti-naturalistic fallacy. Judgements will no longer be conferred on a person's feeling or instincts, but on their actions. And instinct not being regarded as somehow "evil", human interaction will become far more fulfilling, for the simple reason that they aren't born of a tortured nailing together of contradictory ideas and emotions. When it is recognised that an act is immoral because it is revolting to one of our instincts, and not because of some external absolute moral authority deeming it so, morality and law will accord far more with human nature than they do now.
As an amusing afterthought, this also gets rid of the geek-jock fallacy, because both are what you get when you accept the mind-body dichotomy and artificially starve one part of yourself, or neglect it. Both are, in a sense, broken. The mind without a body is as incomplete as the body without a mind.
The fourth part:
This will also force us to accept some facts about the natural world, and about ourselves, which modern culture will frown upon. I'll illustrate with an example.
This post was inspired by feminism, so I'll start with the most common objection there. Feminists will have to accept "objectification" as a biological fact of life. The body being as much part of the individual as the mind is, there is no moral condemnation attached to judging both men or women by their bodies. Your fitness shows, to a great extent, how much you value yourself as a person, because, remember, your person is also your body.
Secondly, what is called "objectification" today is pretty much innate to humans. When a man looks at a woman for the first time, the first judgement made is to place that woman on the scale of 'bang ability'. This isn't conscious, by the way, it's completely subconscious. The only thing men consciously have access to is the result of that judgement. The in-built assessment circuitry says, "That woman is an X on the scale", and that's that. From there on, it cascades. Training can change the criterion of judgement - as you become healthier, so does your taste, generally - but not the fact that the judgement occurs.
Another factor which feminists may be loath to admit, yet is as true as the "objectification" one, is that women also have in-built assessment circuitry. It is more complex than that of men, because it has to measure physical intangibles, but it no less potent. The in-built assessment circuitry for women assesses three things:
a) Resource provision capacity - more specifically, in today's context, the man's financial stability
b) In-group social power - in our context, status in whatever hierarchy the male is competing in
c) Genetic fitness - this is usually a function of the above two, as that is what matters from the long term for genetic fitness, but occasionally, due to the quirks of human sexual selection, a specimen comes along with all the indicators of sexual attractiveness. This is the one most closely resembling the physical "objectification" most feminists so despise.
The point here is that women also innately "objectify" men, but it is more subtle, as a function of their earning potential and social dominance, rather than just their bodies. The same way that feminists complain that men see only their bodies, men may well complain that women see only their bank accounts (or indicators thereof - clothes, watch, car, et cetera) or their rank in the social hierarchy (how dominant a person appears).
Both complaints are essentially pointless whining. This assessment instinct is innate, and instead of trying to block it and make everyone unhappy, why not accept it as a fact of life - which, after all, it is - and move on? The fact that this instinct exists does not mean that men are incapable of seeing anything beyond a body, or that women can see nothing beyond wealth and status. What it means is that these are the first, and probably most powerful things, which will catch our attention. Acknowledging that is better than suppressing it.
This will also force us to accept some facts about the natural world, and about ourselves, which modern culture will frown upon. I'll illustrate with an example.
This post was inspired by feminism, so I'll start with the most common objection there. Feminists will have to accept "objectification" as a biological fact of life. The body being as much part of the individual as the mind is, there is no moral condemnation attached to judging both men or women by their bodies. Your fitness shows, to a great extent, how much you value yourself as a person, because, remember, your person is also your body.
Secondly, what is called "objectification" today is pretty much innate to humans. When a man looks at a woman for the first time, the first judgement made is to place that woman on the scale of 'bang ability'. This isn't conscious, by the way, it's completely subconscious. The only thing men consciously have access to is the result of that judgement. The in-built assessment circuitry says, "That woman is an X on the scale", and that's that. From there on, it cascades. Training can change the criterion of judgement - as you become healthier, so does your taste, generally - but not the fact that the judgement occurs.
Another factor which feminists may be loath to admit, yet is as true as the "objectification" one, is that women also have in-built assessment circuitry. It is more complex than that of men, because it has to measure physical intangibles, but it no less potent. The in-built assessment circuitry for women assesses three things:
a) Resource provision capacity - more specifically, in today's context, the man's financial stability
b) In-group social power - in our context, status in whatever hierarchy the male is competing in
c) Genetic fitness - this is usually a function of the above two, as that is what matters from the long term for genetic fitness, but occasionally, due to the quirks of human sexual selection, a specimen comes along with all the indicators of sexual attractiveness. This is the one most closely resembling the physical "objectification" most feminists so despise.
The point here is that women also innately "objectify" men, but it is more subtle, as a function of their earning potential and social dominance, rather than just their bodies. The same way that feminists complain that men see only their bodies, men may well complain that women see only their bank accounts (or indicators thereof - clothes, watch, car, et cetera) or their rank in the social hierarchy (how dominant a person appears).
Both complaints are essentially pointless whining. This assessment instinct is innate, and instead of trying to block it and make everyone unhappy, why not accept it as a fact of life - which, after all, it is - and move on? The fact that this instinct exists does not mean that men are incapable of seeing anything beyond a body, or that women can see nothing beyond wealth and status. What it means is that these are the first, and probably most powerful things, which will catch our attention. Acknowledging that is better than suppressing it.
Don't even get me started. 
Comment