|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 24, 2005 15:10:14 GMT -5
Everything was understandable, but on the other hand, you seem to misunderstood my main points.
I said culture has a function, so its not about saying that f.e. the hunter gatherer group X or the Europeans of the 17th century were "natural" and moderns aren't. You can give gooses a football and they might accept it as their mother, and sure, they acting "natural" since their instincts just saying so - first thing which looks like something living is your mother.
Of course, that was rational from a biological point of view since how often was something else there then their parents? How often was there something so sweet like fruits for humans? Sugar is a surrogat. How often was there something sexual just happening without any consequence in most of the cases? Furthermore most cultures appreciated children very much and wanted to have some anway...
The point is instincts can be mislead, so saying that the goose follow the football is "as natural" as following their mother...oh well, thats something really different even if the behaviour itself is "natural" in its way.
The point was that human behaviour in the past was not so far away from what a rational human being would do if looking at the natural base of life than what is done now. Going on in the same direction means extinction and thats just a disease and error, nothing as "natural" and for sure not rational...
Thats a huge difference since I dont want to go back to a "romantic past" but to go on in a direction which would be good for the majority of the individuals, the collective, species and ecosystem.
So I dont believe in a "natural condition of man", though humans were made for the hunter gatherer-small group life, but in the necessity to improve the imperfect culture and biological base for our very survival.
The liberal society is just the wrong strategy for doing so, even on the contrary, she is destroying potential of not just my group and race, but the whole species.
There are more effective ways of organising society and coping with the problems we are facing, and for developing such strategies we have to look at our biological base first.
Because every ideology or religion which just dont doing so will fail, will come to absurd, irrational and destructive ways of developing ill norms.
Just look at the example with the senses and sexual behaviour. Well, sure its "natural to act like many people do nowadays", but its no useful way if looking at the bigger picture and from some distance. Because if you are doing so you just see mad self-domesticated animals destroying their future and addicted to surrogats.
Culture, norms and social structures should lead humans where their instincts fail and not using their instincts for short time oriented interests of other instinctively and wrong acting parasitic individuals. But of course the liberal mass society means exactly this and nothing else.
Since culture was always a tool for humans and culture is modifiable very fast, there is no "natural culture", but only effective, fitting ones and those which fail their primary duty - to bridge and finally outflank the instinctive insecurity of humans.
Acting rational, forming a rational culture means securing the future of yourself, your relatives, your group, collective, species and the ecosystem. Everything else is just a human error in reasoning.
Now that doesnt mean our life must be absolutely rational and goal-oriented only in this way, but our whole societies and personal life shouldnt be the opposite of what would be rational - but exactly this is the case in our current liberal society.
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Mar 25, 2005 22:21:00 GMT -5
Acting rational, forming a rational culture means securing the future of yourself, your relatives, your group, collective, species and the ecosystem. Everything else is just a human error in reasoning. Now that doesnt mean our life must be absolutely rational and goal-oriented only in this way, but our whole societies and personal life shouldnt be the opposite of what would be rational - but exactly this is the case in our current liberal society. What would you propose as a political program to serve as a rational to liberalism (market-oriented global society) for humanity?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 26, 2005 10:52:06 GMT -5
What would you propose as a political program to serve as a rational to liberalism (market-oriented global society) for humanity? What I said one or two sides back about Progressive Collectivism. Especially the maxims I mentioned. A collective oriented society which works dynamically for improving both culture and the biological base (Eugenic). In the economy I just want a stronger state sector and control of market mechanisms. In fact I see just 2 options for the future: worldwide social, ecolological and right standards on a high level, or Europe must use tolls and taxes to protect itself from social-ecological-wage-dumping and to force others to adapt themselves to higher standards. Either way economically and politically. Because whats happening now is that mainly the US force other nations to destroy all their standards, even in Africa they forced nations to cut their, very low anyway, social programs if its about their depths and American enterprises. The depths policy and new orthodox economy rules are the problem if we're speaking about that. The Neoliberals dont try to bring the world to a certain higher standard, but to destroy standards to get more profits for a parasitic minority and to spread the decadent American lifestyle and keep grip of the American plutocrats on the world markets even if their own (national) economy might be downgraded during this process in many, if not most sectors.
|
|
|
Post by kiengi on Mar 28, 2005 16:18:55 GMT -5
Very long thread and many thoughtful post of above average intelligence.
I voted for West Asian catagory. I find these people most difficult to work with.
Intelligence measured in what context ?
In the tsunami disaster last year, the most intelligent people were the native hunter and gatherers in indonesia and indian coast. Dumb tourist from scandinavia unintelligently surrendered to giant waves and perished instead of taking the nature's clue and evacuate.
In the modern society context, a person with intelligence are the ones with creativity, who can make incremental advances on technology or business process, or artful developments.
Being Intelligent owe to educational process. Some places not only have poor educational systems but system it-self destroy the students creativity endeavor. Less to do with Race or percieved Race.
|
|
|
Post by Buddyryvall on Mar 29, 2005 4:55:00 GMT -5
OOH yeah, over 2000 views on my thread, The voting is now locked, all together there were 36 votes, Black Sub Saharans had a whoping 41% of votes placing them at the top, followed closely by East asians with 16%. But is there really an unintelligent race, no completly accurate investigations have been conducted to resolve this, until then the question remains [glow=red,2,300]UNANSWERED[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Mar 29, 2005 11:54:45 GMT -5
It seems this thread is having an effect. nusapiens.blogspot.com/Let's hope connecting to Dodona is within the Allowed Worthy Activities
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Mar 29, 2005 21:02:17 GMT -5
It seems this thread is having an effect. nusapiens.blogspot.com/Let's hope connecting to Dodona is within the Allowed Worthy Activities ? I'm not sure what you mean there. I'd like the human species as a whole to become more intelligent (curious, mentally quick, intellectually versatile) in general through biological and technological means, but don't favor any traditional race in particular. The blog is meant to be a log of ideas, not a doctrine or personal religion.
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Mar 29, 2005 22:01:55 GMT -5
What I said one or two sides back about Progressive Collectivism. Especially the maxims I mentioned. A collective oriented society which works dynamically for improving both culture and the biological base (Eugenic). In the economy I just want a stronger state sector and control of market mechanisms. How can this be done in big cities? And what ways would you suggest to reverse negative trends that already exist? For instance, if you could propose a set of laws to the United States Congress, what would you propose?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Mar 29, 2005 22:47:08 GMT -5
How can this be done in big cities? And what ways would you suggest to reverse negative trends that already exist? For instance, if you could propose a set of laws to the United States Congress, what would you propose? I'm not sure if thats the right place to speak about that, especially not in this thread because its a different thing. Furthermore it would go so deep and would need so much explanations that it would go at least over 5 more sides. But probably you can visit Skadi were I wrote about many things I could mention here. In fact, believe it or not, I like to speak about such things more than to write anyway.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Mar 30, 2005 3:03:32 GMT -5
? I'm not sure what you mean there. I'd like the human species as a whole to become more intelligent (curious, mentally quick, intellectually versatile) in general through biological and technological means, but don't favor any traditional race in particular. The blog is meant to be a log of ideas, not a doctrine or personal religion. When I linked to your blog the last article went: "This includes a dedication to arete, or human excellence: scientific truth, health and physical beauty, and social harmony. Modern life generates a plentiful variety of products, ideas, and lifestyles, but it does not evaluate them by any standard other than personal pleasure or profit. The market is a tool, but it is a poor moral arbiter: it tends to favor that which is most popular, and appeals to the lowest common denominator. The market offers no foresight or philosophical standard, which explains the cheap vapidity of global pop culture as well as the extreme, meaningless individualism of urban life. This is dangerous." I was referring to the above political statement (which resonates Agrippa's reflections on this thread). The market means every buyer makes his own choices (I am now spending my connection time on Dodona); the alternative to the market is someone decides for someone else (as the Transhuman Commitee deems citizens should enrich themselves connecting with a less vapid site, say, the Transhuman Government site). When you advocate a different choosing way than the market you are saying some should decide for someone else. No getting away from that. That is what I meant with my joke, nothing to do with races, all to do with political philosophy. I add, with this kind of reasoning you go straight to totalitarianism.
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Mar 30, 2005 11:39:15 GMT -5
The market means every buyer makes his own choices (I am now spending my connection time on Dodona); the alternative to the market is someone decides for someone else (as the Transhuman Commitee deems citizens should enrich themselves connecting with a less vapid site, say, the Transhuman Government site). When you advocate a different choosing way than the market you are saying some should decide for someone else. No getting away from that. That is what I meant with my joke, nothing to do with races, all to do with political philosophy. I add, with this kind of reasoning you go straight to totalitarianism. The State is not the only means to attain such goals. Many people have pursued some of these ideals within their own ethnos without any state. Another avenue is the free association of like-minded people pursuing shared goals, which forms the basis of the Western corporation. As Aristotle pointed out, states are only as good as the citizens who compose them. Markets can also be very beneficial, especially when they can distribute access to goods to enhance life. The Internet is such a tool: despite its apparent banality, it makes dissemination of ideas around the world possible. Dodona is good because it allows people to discuss somewhat taboo subjects, and get input from people from many backgrounds, races, etc. Normally such matters are discussed behind closed doors amongst kin or close friends. What I promote is intelligent management of human life (instead of allowing things to be dictated by chance) so that they benefit humanity: and that means promoting excellence. This is already done to a large extent, and seems quite natural for humans - but negative ideological dogma that runs contrary to nature (which is in fact totalitarian) can do a lot of damage to society before society can recoil and recover (if it can). In order to truly excell and feel fulfilled, people need to serve a common purpose. Merely making money for personal gain is not enough for most people - and that is a good thing, it speaks very well of human nature. But human nature needs to be respected and its resources tapped, instead of denied.
|
|
Hallam
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by Hallam on Mar 30, 2005 12:35:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Mar 31, 2005 6:21:12 GMT -5
The State is not the only means to attain such goals. Many people have pursued some of these ideals within their own ethnos without any state. Another avenue is the free association of like-minded people pursuing shared goals, which forms the basis of the Western corporation. As Aristotle pointed out, states are only as good as the citizens who compose them. Markets can also be very beneficial, especially when they can distribute access to goods to enhance life. The Internet is such a tool: despite its apparent banality, it makes dissemination of ideas around the world possible. Dodona is good because it allows people to discuss somewhat taboo subjects, and get input from people from many backgrounds, races, etc. Normally such matters are discussed behind closed doors amongst kin or close friends. What I promote is intelligent management of human life (instead of allowing things to be dictated by chance) so that they benefit humanity: and that means promoting excellence. This is already done to a large extent, and seems quite natural for humans - but negative ideological dogma that runs contrary to nature (which is in fact totalitarian) can do a lot of damage to society before society can recoil and recover (if it can). In order to truly excell and feel fulfilled, people need to serve a common purpose. Merely making money for personal gain is not enough for most people - and that is a good thing, it speaks very well of human nature. But human nature needs to be respected and its resources tapped, instead of denied. I don't know if it's proper to keep this debate on this thread (whose title, BTW, I thoroughly hate, and it makes the whole board look silly, even more if you look at how the "races" are listed in the options). However, you say your aims could be achieved without State intervention. But I understood you were advocating a different system from the market system, as in not letting all the choices being done by the market. This seems the meaning of "What I promote is intelligent management of human life (instead of allowing things to be dictated by chance)". If not, what do you mean exactly by "chance" in this case? Besides you asked Agrippa which laws he would propose to reach his (yours?) goals. This also goes in the direction I think I detected as in forcing your choices, by means of the state, on someone else.
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Mar 31, 2005 20:18:45 GMT -5
Besides you asked Agrippa which laws he would propose to reach his (yours?) goals. This also goes in the direction I think I detected as in forcing your choices, by means of the state, on someone else. State intervention already exists to promote many agendas. That isn't necessarily totalitarian; it is simply a fact of modern life. Politics is about competition: if one view is not promoted or enforced, another inevitably is. And inaction speaks just as stronly as action: it amounts to tacit approval. So if a state allows a culture of violence, selfishness, and stupidity to flourish, that is tantamount to state sanction. And since all states, including (and especially) democratic ones depend upon their constituents, these are crucial questions.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Apr 1, 2005 5:00:14 GMT -5
Politics is about competition: if one view is not promoted or enforced, another inevitably is. And inaction speaks just as stronly as action: it amounts to tacit approval. I couldn't disagree more. Your way of thinking is thoroughly totalitarian. If not prohibiting an action equals "tacital approval" by the state, this means the state must encompass all human aims and knows better about everything. In your view then what is not prohibited is approved, i.e. there is no field where the state is neutral. This is exactly what totalitarian means: the state is in every axpect of human life. Note that a state can be democratic and totalitarian. So if a state allows a culture of violence, selfishness, and stupidity to flourish, that is tantamount to state sanction. And since all states, including (and especially) democratic ones depend upon their constituents, these are crucial questions. This confirms the above. You think culture (i.e. what people read, study, look on tv, talk about) should be shaped directly or indirectly by the state. Said in different words, this means that someone should force someone else to study, read, see etc. what he thinks fit. However, I think many agree with you.
|
|