Human Psychology Debating Thread

Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:01 am by The Evil Thing

As per Final's request I have created a new topic just so I can debate the base instincts of the human animal with Wilde, continuing on from our debate in GTA, Hands Off???? thread

Anyone else is welcome to post, provided it stays on topic.

So, where were we?

*ahem*

Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:01 am by The Evil Thing

Give it up, your game is over!

No.

By our standards, not theirs.

What I meant was that the Roman culture did not fear death or see the subject as taboo as we do today. Often they celebrated a 'good' death. Seeing so much death in their time would almost certainly force them to accept it, thus making them much less resistant to the idea of killing people, especially when they 'deserved' it. That is why as many enjoyed the public executions as they did the venationes and gladiatorial fights. There was no excitement, it was just slaughter for the sake of slaughter and they recognised it as such.

Exactly. And the punishment is unnecessarily bloody.

By our standards, not theirs.

Oh, I've heard of her. Crazy biatch.

They based a quest in Diablo II on her.

And once again, enforced the law in an unnecessarily bloody fashion.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

Thank you for proving my point

But let's look at WHY they are drenched in blood. Is it because of the evil, bloodthirst soldiers? Or is it because rebellion tends to stay low-key and small if people live in constant fear of their lives? By brutally suppressing a population you safeguard your foothold in the short term and sometimes the long term. It's a nasty business, but it works. Notice how badly the US is doing in the Middle-East? With the world's media watching they can hardly repress revolt, they have to stick it out. Not that that is a bad thing but you can see the results of lending too much power to the people. Give me one example of an empire that killed people for the hell of it. THAT is a bloodthirst empire. Except the Assyrians, even they had motive but I can't investigate something without any material.

Well, argue against it. Prove to me why I am wrong!

You think one thing, I have present my case for my opinion. You don't agree. I have neither the time nor inclination to propound my views to you when you don't accept them now and so probably never will. There is no way I can prove anything to you without a degree in psychology, so if you could wait a few years...

But you just said you disagreed totally. You strange strange child.

For your reading benefit I included only the part I agree with in the quotes. Above that you can find the part I disagree with. Maybe you intended it to be treated as contiguous text, but I don't really work like that. Sorry.

Ok. Humans have always a dual impulse towards the Absolute. We are drawn to it, for its transcendence of the ego, and pushed away from it, for our innability to comprehend it through the caging mental frame. When confronted with it, we choose one instinct or the other. In a situation where we give in to terror, we lash out at the source; it one where we overcome terror, we deify it.

For example: Homosexuality in Christian society (post-doctrinization) is considered an evil, a work of satan, bestial, depraved, to be condemned. Most other societies worldwide have not given it at all the same amount of attention; in Mesopotamian society it was a non-issue (there are even some homosexual references in the Epic of Gilgamesh); similarly it was barely considered in most of Asia; in Greek society, of course, it was celebrated. But very often in shamanistic and native cultures (most notably here in north america), homosexuality is not only viewed as that which should be celebrated, but as holy. Homosexuals were, in a sense, deified.

In Christian and native societies, homosexuality is looked at as liminal and therefore powerful. The response is vastly different, of course.

You are Absolutely (sic) right. But Christians tend to miss the point with homosexuality. It was condemned because at the time of the bible's writing the population was still very small, and thus homosexuality meant that men were being 'wasted' on each other instead of procreating with women. Unfortunately, being hardline Christian enough to automatically hate homosexuals requires a hefty sacrifice of logic, therefore they believe that hating homosexuality is the Will of God(tm). This provides motive and all the reason they need.

Ok, let's backtrack.
We are terrified at the unknowable, apprehensive of the unknown.
When we recognize a thing as being unknowable, we feel automatically terror and awe, the former being the instinct we tend to proceed with.
That which is liminal, falling between the boundaries of the mental frame, violating the purity code, is recognized as unknowable.
--ergo, we feel terror at the liminal, and attack it.

I don't think we are terrified of the unknown. We are certainly suspicious, which if fueled in the wrong way can turn into fear and terror. But that takes a lot of doing and external intervention. Terror and awe are far too strong to use in this example as basic feelings. Certainly suspicion and curiosity would be experienced, however, which are more or less the same, only weaker.

See? The conversion of man and beast, again. The animal thinks by its instincts, without compassion, pulling humans into the water and devouring them. But the monster, or so I saw when I did an image search, is very often portrayed not as a mere beast but as a humanoid. Its bowing portrays the anthropomorphism.

True. I agree with you here.

Let's try a more common monster: the werewolf. Wolves are fierce, bestial, strong, but knowable, and for this reason by themselves do not truly inspire terror in the manner of a monster that is both great beast and sentient man does. One cannot comprehend such a monster through the frame complex, for it transcends such a thing.

I don't think that's the case at all. Werewolves would have been created in myths by man's attempt to combine the most dangerous traits of animals with that of man himself. The horror of the werewolf comes from the idea of something feral and lethal possessing the intelligence of humans. Whether this was inspired by observing the intelligence of wolves in the wild or fears and fantasies manifesting themselves in stories told to frighten children is hard to say.

No. Show me why I'm wrong.

I won't. The same logic (I feel) applies here as further above. If I am suggesting something like that you can assume that I have no further elaborations on my argument that is relevant (name calling, for instance

) but am utterly convinced of its legitimacy and correctness. There is no way, it seems for me to convince you of my opinions in this area, so I will not waste our time trying to discuss it.

Yes, but why are they scary to small children? Why are they even scary to adults? The monsters are liminal.

That may be so, but they are also scary because the adults are no better off in knowledge than children when those stories were widespread and believed. They only scare people properly if those people have no science to rationalise or explain away as nonsense.

So murder is not a basic instinct

You said this in your last post.

And once again, prove my original premise wrong. Misogeny, murder , bloodthirst, and greed are NOT the basest instincts of humanity?

Now that we have knocked a second point down, that leaves misogyny and bloodlust. Let's move on.

So, the scale is this, going backwards:
Murder --> hatred --> response to terror --> terror and awe --> stimulus (Unknowable)
So murder is not a basic instinct, but it still is a direct branch of a basic instinct.
And it still is base . I don't think that you disagree with that, considering you spent considerable time denouncing historical murderers and showing that their atrocities were not representative of humanity on the whole.

As I have said I do not believe that terror and awe are really ideal for describing this. You are essentially correct in your scale but we still need external influences and pressures to move from one stage to the next. Because society is so full of these pressures and opinions that the process could well seem natural and automatic, that isn't to say that it is. And I only pointed out that historical murderers were not representative of humanity as a whole. We can safely say that empires such as the Romans and the Assyrians (without any knowledge of this I cannot analyse it) are representative of humanity. I am talking about the crowds that oooh and aaah at people killing each other in exciting ways, not Nero who burned down about a quarter of Rome so he could build a new palace.

I did say "qualitative difference".

Okay, fair enough.

Misogyny will be a minority. But there will always be a half-man.

Yeah... I'm not quite clear what you mean by half-man, though.

And the ball is back into your court.

@Aliens, yes that seems to have worked.

Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:04 am by Aliens! Aaaah, aliens!

I have an idea!

How about, instead of simply saying, "no, I disagree" all the time, why not actually tell us what traits you think "have or show a contemptible, mean-spirited, or selfish lack of human decency"?

Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:38 am by Wilde

By our standards, not theirs

I is be restin me case.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

I will then. Challawalla.

And I awoke...they were bouncing 'round the room, the echo of whomever spoke...

Don't ask.

we are terrified of the unknown. We are certainly suspicious

Exactly my point. We are suspicious of the unknown; we are terrified of the unknowable. One can be known: it is possible to comprehend within the mindframe. The other cannot be known without the removal/fluidity of the frame. Humans are most stubborn about this, however, as the world saw with Cold War: both sides were absolutely inable to step away from their cultural worldviews, to look through the eyes of the other, and to view their own frame with objectivity.
If we refuse to

As per terror and awe, once again I am talking about that which isn't known and can't be, not that which isn't known and can be. To prove my point, I could give a tale of direct experience, but you'd think I was resorting to hyperbole and in any case direct experience is mistrusted. So I'll ask you a question:

Have you ever had a dream (pardon me, I'm under the influence of C.G. Jung and Joseph Cambell) where you are confronted suddenly by a shapeless void, that slowly grows and creeps till it engulfs everything you see, and there is nothing but its depths? Or one where you are swimming in an ocean, and suddenly sucked down into the blackness, or the sun and surface dissapear and there is nothing but cold water everywhere you look? Or one when you are running, being chased by something terrible but you cannot comprehend exactly what the thing is--you only know its awesome power?

If not, I'll give you more rational and empirical examples, but the most effective method of proving one's point is calling on another's direct experience.

The horror of the werewolf comes from the idea of something feral and lethal possessing the intelligence of humans

Exactly. Great beast and sentient man. It's liminal.

By that I'd think you agree with me on the point about liminality and the terror involved in it. So why do you disagree on the point about the unknowable being so terrifying?

You said this in your last post.

Oy vey. I didn't mean basest as in "basic" I meant basest as in "of a contemptible or selfish lack of human decency!"

My point was never that murder is a basic instinct. These are all offshoots of basic instincts, the "animal" instincts, with the sole exception of selfishness, which is not an offshoot.

So let's drop that point, shall we? Consider I'd assume we both agree on the...immorality of murder, bloodlust, misogyny, and selfishness.

Yeah... I'm not quite clear what you mean by half-man, though.

A human or group of humans that for its liminality is despised and used as an object--a scapegoat, if you will--for all our lower instincts to be projected upon, the bestial parts of ourselves, and those that we hate most. This all is in an attempt to deify ourselves by comparison, showing how God and humanity is on our side, not that of the thing less than human.

I'd love to write more, but I's got a dog that needs to be walked. Your serve!

Edit: So nu?? No response?

Edited by - Wilde on 8/17/2005 7:05:55 AM

Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:16 pm by The Evil Thing

Thank you, Wilde, for shortening your post. I shall endeavour to do the same

Edit: So nu?? No response?

Yeah, sorry about that but I have been rather busy.

And I awoke...they were bouncing 'round the room, the echo of whomever spoke...

Don't ask.

Ok. I assume it is irrelevant then

Exactly my point. We are suspicious of the unknown; we are terrified of the unknowable. One can be known: it is possible to comprehend within the mindframe. The other cannot be known without the removal/fluidity of the frame. Humans are most stubborn about this, however, as the world saw with Cold War: both sides were absolutely inable to step away from their cultural worldviews, to look through the eyes of the other, and to view their own frame with objectivity.
If we refuse to

Unfortunately, it was arrogance that mainly resulted in the Cold War. The terror in the Cold War was not caused by the unknown per se (at least not in the way you portray it) but simply because people are much easier to control when they live in fear. The Russians were portrayed as evil, freedom-hating imperialists. And the Americans were portrayed as vile, capitalist slavers who gave all the wealth over to a few, priveliged (they might have been on to something

) upper classes. You were taught to fear the other side because it would rape your women and pillage your country, the fear was not rational but simply programmed in.

As per terror and awe, once again I am talking about that which isn't known and can't be, not that which isn't known and can be.

Alright then, but then how do you define "can't be"? I will assume for the sake of common sense you are referring to the one who experiences, as theoretically (excuse the pun) anything can be explained.

Have you ever had a dream (pardon me, I'm under the influence of C.G. Jung and Joseph Cambell) where you are confronted suddenly by a shapeless void, that slowly grows and creeps till it engulfs everything you see, and there is nothing but its depths? Or one where you are swimming in an ocean, and suddenly sucked down into the blackness, or the sun and surface dissapear and there is nothing but cold water everywhere you look? Or one when you are running, being chased by something terrible but you cannot comprehend exactly what the thing is--you only know its awesome power?

No. But it sounds like it would work well in a novel.

If not, I'll give you more rational and empirical examples, but the most effective method of proving one's point is calling on another's direct experience.

I'll take the other examples, if you please.

Oy vey. I didn't mean basest as in "basic" I meant basest as in "of a contemptible or selfish lack of human decency!"

You should have said that at the start you twerp!

That was the only thing I disagreed on, and the only reason I continued to argue with you.

You always need to be careful what you say so annoying people like me can't misinterpret what you said and delay your dog-walking.

So let's drop that point, shall we? Consider I'd assume we both agree on the...immorality of murder, bloodlust, misogyny, and selfishness.

Done.

A human or group of humans that for its liminality is despised and used as an object--a scapegoat, if you will--for all our lower instincts to be projected upon, the bestial parts of ourselves, and those that we hate most. This all is in an attempt to deify ourselves by comparison, showing how God and humanity is on our side, not that of the thing less than human.

Okay, that makes more sense.

I'd love to write more, but I's got a dog that needs to be walked. Your serve!

*Makes service in vague direction of Wilde's court*

You can hit it back if you like.

Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:00 pm by Wilde

Ahh. So we've reached a synthesis of sorts on most points.

Hegel would be happy.

I assume it is irrelevant then

It wasn't irrelevant at all. I just told you not to ask. And now I shall hum pointlessly another line of Phish:

A crystal haze, and with a sweet sound bouncing round...a neverending coral maze...

Unfortunately, it was arrogance that mainly resulted in the Cold War

Truly, I was not speaking about what resulted in the cold war, but the fact that it continued for the better part of half a century. Both sides were so convinced they were right, so arrogant, so wrapped up in their worldviews that they failed to step outside momentarily, to view their mindframes with objectivity, to see with the eyes of their enemies.

Alright then, but then how do you define "can't be"?

Ok, let me explain myself better. Something that "can't be" understood, cannot be known is a thing that no matter which way it is looked at cannot be comprehended from within the mental frame. The stimulus cannot be categorized and interpreted within the mind, because it transcends such boundaries. To understand it, one's frame must become fluid, transmutable. Open mindedness of the highest degree.

I'll give an example, a minor example:

. . .
. . .
. . .

Nine dots. Connect them all with four straight, connected lines. Make a diagram in paint, figure it out, and post it on here.

You're right that anything can be explained. That is, however, irrelevant. Deja vu can be explained in entirely scientific terms, but that doesn't change the fact that without said explanation the mind cannot comprehend it.
Furthermore, explanation and comprehension are two entirely different things. One can explain the physical and biological evidence supporting homosexuality as a genetically-caused and entirely natural orientation; a homophobe will most likely not accept it as fact, even if the argument is unquestionably sound. He/she will object to their frame being twisted and broken, holding on instead to what they claimed to be truth, and therefore not comprehend the argument at all.

Finallly, there are things in the universe that still we can't explain and can't comprehend. Quantum physics, for example. We have barely touched the tip of the iceberg on that.

One of the most basic concepts, time , we do not understand. All we know of that is our memories of the "past", sensation of the "present", reasoning that there will be a "future". Sensation and interpretation, no more. We don't know what it is .

No. But it sounds like it would work well in a novel.

Really? Wow. Nothing along those lines?

Okay, that makes more sense.

Hah. Pwned.

I'll take the other examples, if you please.

Give me some time to formulate an argument, mmkay?. More chores need to be done now

Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:45 am by The Evil Thing

Ok, let me explain myself better. Something that "can't be" understood, cannot be known is a thing that no matter which way it is looked at cannot be comprehended from within the mental frame. The stimulus cannot be categorized and interpreted within the mind, because it transcends such boundaries. To understand it, one's frame must become fluid, transmutable. Open mindedness of the highest degree.

You could have simply stated that it cannot be explained by only what the senses percieve. Like rain.

Nine dots. Connect them all with four straight, connected lines. Make a diagram in paint, figure it out, and post it on here.

Aaargh! I can't do it!

That is, however, irrelevant.

That's why I said theoretically. I assumed that was what you didn't mean, but I just included it to sound clever.

Really? Wow. Nothing along those lines?

Well, a trashy, clichéed novel.

Hah. Pwned.

Eh, what?

Give me some time to formulate an argument, mmkay?. More chores need to be done now

Enjoy.

Edited by - The Evil Thing on 8/18/2005 6:21:47 AM

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:20 am by Wilde

Aaargh! I can't do it!

I know

. I'll draw up a diagram showing you how. Give me a minute.

Ok, here's the rest of the argument. Enjoy:

I'll take the other examples, if you please.

Ok, here we go:
Firstly, from direct experience: I meditate daily, so I have somewhat of a vast quantity of experiences with the terror/awe factor (disregard, momentarily at least, the fact that meditation is now being used in North America as the replacement for happy pills). The function of this practice is--at least, so my experience has been and so I have learned--not mere relaxation. It is rather a method of plunging , in Senecan terms, by way of alleviating the conscious thought. Ego transcendence. One's mind expands and opens. If acted out properly, the experience can be supremely blissful (in a way that ignorance could never fulfill

). Having said that, the sheer envelopment of the mind, the sudden alleviation of the frame, the dissolution of the accustomed conscious thought can be severely terrifying, simultaneously coupled with the happiness derived from it. There are times when I have simply opened my eyes, stood and stopped because the total immersion is overwhelming and indeed on the verge of terror.

As for the dream-ideas I presented to you, they are all somewhat like dreams that I have had. Dreams of this sort are common cross-culturally. Obviously, the specifics and details are not the same, but the same idea is there: A terror at the unknowable, dangerous forces. This theme shows up again and again--not only in dream, but also in myth (contemporary and ancient).

Krishna and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. Ya and Jonah in the New Testament. In the children's movie "The Lion King", the hero covers his face in terror at hearing the thunderous voice and image of his dead father in the heavens. In the Lord of the Rings (books and movies), Pippin is strangely drawn to the mysterious Palantir...and when he gazes into its depths is overcome with terror at what he sees. In the Old Testament, Moses comes down from Mount Sinai and must wear a veil over his face because the Hebrews are terrified to look at him, shining with light (literally). Another recent thriller (I forget its name), shows a young vacationing couple who go scuba diving, and when they surface their tour boat has left, leaving them alone with nothing but endless miles of the black depth surrounding them...truly terrifying.

Ok, so direct experience, ancient myth and modern popular culture...now onto rational argument:

1. / Absolute reality must by necessity exist or by necessity not exist.
2. / Only that which is a contradiction must by necessity not exist.
3. / Absolute reality cannot be shown to be a contradiction, as that would imply nothing existed beyond the frame.
4. / Transcending the mindframe, it cannot be interpreted and categorized.
5. / Being unable to interpret, to comprehend it, one feels the dual instinct of wonder and terror--the former because it transcends the ego, the later because of its awesome power that cannot be understood.

Ok, I'm bloody spent. Apologies for the hideous length of the post.

Truly, it is hard to explain this in terms of words, for words are only sounds and sketches given meaning solely by one's frame. The Absolute transcends the frame. Words are insufficient to describe it.

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:39 am by Aliens! Aaaah, aliens!

Um, for the nine dots thing, do the lines all meet/cross in the middle? If so, I figured it out.

You should have said that at the start you twerp!

A-HEM! You should have read my posts you twerp!

Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:39 am by Alpha-Leader

^ It cant be that easy I just looked at it and figured it out in 5 seconds.

Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:24 am by Wilde

No. Nine dots. four straight, connected lines. Connect the dots.

It can't be anything like an asterisk--the lines have to connect to each other.

I'd be interested to see diagrams of solutions. There are actually several ways to do this.

. . .
. . .
. . .

Edited by - Wilde on 8/18/2005 9:24:24 AM

Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:51 am by The Evil Thing

Wait, do they have to be continuous or just touching?

._._.
/_._.
/_._.

Like that?

EDIT: Oh, yeah, the posting bit

So then...

Firstly, from direct experience: I meditate daily, so I have somewhat of a vast quantity of experiences with the terror/awe factor (disregard, momentarily at least, the fact that meditation is now being used in North America as the replacement for happy pills). The function of this practice is--at least, so my experience has been and so I have learned--not mere relaxation. It is rather a method of plunging , in Senecan terms, by way of alleviating the conscious thought. Ego transcendence. One's mind expands and opens. If acted out properly, the experience can be supremely blissful (in a way that ignorance could never fulfill ). Having said that, the sheer envelopment of the mind, the sudden alleviation of the frame, the dissolution of the accustomed conscious thought can be severely terrifying, simultaneously coupled with the happiness derived from it. There are times when I have simply opened my eyes, stood and stopped because the total immersion is overwhelming and indeed on the verge of terror.

Umm.. ok. I'm not sure how that is rational or empirical, but I'll take your word for it.

Krishna and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. Ya and Jonah in the New Testament. In the children's movie "The Lion King", the hero covers his face in terror at hearing the thunderous voice and image of his dead father in the heavens. In the Lord of the Rings (books and movies), Pippin is strangely drawn to the mysterious Palantir...and when he gazes into its depths is overcome with terror at what he sees. In the Old Testament, Moses comes down from Mount Sinai and must wear a veil over his face because the Hebrews are terrified to look at him, shining with light (literally). Another recent thriller (I forget its name), shows a young vacationing couple who go scuba diving, and when they surface their tour boat has left, leaving them alone with nothing but endless miles of the black depth surrounding them...truly terrifying.

The recent thriller was called Open Water. Anyway, the terror in most of these examples (I don't know much about Krishna and Arjuna) is in the of a seemingly omnipotent and/or omniscient power. While these instances are definitely shrouded in unknown they are also covered with an overbearing feel of strength, and knowledge that anything might happen if they displease this power. If you were in the USA in the 1970s would you fear the Communists because you didn't know much about them, or because they had (it is alledged) thousands of thermonuclear weapons pointed at you? I maintain that ignorance can never be a primary cause of irrational terror (notice I use terror, in it's most literal form). It can and certainly is a primary cause of suspicion, which is then blown into fear and terror upon the reception of a second, relevant (sometimes irrelevant) stimulus. Perhaps Simba covered his face not out of fear, but shame and guilt at the knowledge he caused his father's death. Pippin as you said is overcome with fear at what he sees. Who wouldn't be terrified to look into the very essence of pure evil incarnate? I don't know much about the bible, so I will avoid comment on both Jonah and Moses lest I grasp the wrong end of the proverbial stick. As for Open Water, well, it was pretty clear they were going to die. They had every justification for being terrified.

now onto rational argument

You mean to say I just spent half an hour typing a reply to an irrational argument?

1. / Absolute reality must by necessity exist or by necessity not exist.
2. / Only that which is a contradiction must by necessity not exist.
3. / Absolute reality cannot be shown to be a contradiction, as that would imply nothing existed beyond the frame.
4. / Transcending the mindframe, it cannot be interpreted and categorized.
5. / Being unable to interpret, to comprehend it, one feels the dual instinct of wonder and terror--the former because it transcends the ego, the later because of its awesome power that cannot be understood.

You constantly refer to the Absolute (sic) as a proper noun. What exactly do you mean by it, just to make sure we are on the same page. Otherwise, up to point 4, I agree with you, points 4 and 5 are a little peculiar, though.

Over to you now.

Edited by - The Evil Thing on 8/19/2005 4:24:14 AM

Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:39 am by Wilde

Wait, do they have to be continuous or just touching?

Coninuous.

Apologies, I'm leaving on a vacation in half an hour for two weeks.

Sorry.

Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:46 pm by The Shroud (lurking)

easy
make an hourglass

Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.

To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport