Narcissism Is Increasing. So You’re Not So Special
By Arthur C. Brooks, Feb. 13 2016 (LINK to article)
The fact is that the world does appear to revolve around ME, and it is my pain and pleasures which I experience directly. Those of others pass me by almost completely. It is the rare exception when they don't, when it is some one I feel close to and empathise with, and even then, its hardly the same. One may be distraught at a loved-one's pain, but you still can't actually feel it.
It is also a fact that we evolved as a member of a tribe, whose well-being and survival was more important than the individual, which resulted in us evolving to experience more profound pleasure from serving our tribe than just ourselves.
Then along came the state and did away with our original tribes, with the modern, "nation state" deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation itself, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, not for the benefit of society at large, as they claim, but to facilitate its SELF-exploitation to their own, personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense (and ultimate self-destruction) of society at large.
Why is this not recognised by the academics we look to as authorities in understanding society, the state and civilisation?
Because the deceit works for them, as it does for everyone who is anyone in society, thus binding us to a tragic cycle of civilisational boom and bust.
As western civilisation approaches the bust phase of this cycle, the question is, can we put an end to it, BEFORE it puts an end to us? We have the potential, I am sure, but do we have the will? Time will tell.
Showing posts with label civilisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civilisation. Show all posts
Sunday, 14 February 2016
Sunday, 7 February 2016
Civilisation itself is Deeply Flawed
America Is Flint
By Nicholas Kristof Feb. 6, 2016 (LINK to article)
What Mr Kristof overlooks is the bigger picture, which reveals the SYSTEM itself to be at fault, which ultimately - certainly in a democracy like America - we are all responsible and thus to blame for. However, this would involve much introspection and self-criticism, which we are not good at. We are far better at and disposed towards blaming others.
It is what the ancient Greeks and Romans did as their civilisations were declining. It is, I believe, what caused the decline and demise of all past civilisations, and will soon result in the precipitous decline and demise of our own, western, civilisation.
However, we are not all equally to blame. Most of the responsibility rests with academics, whom the rest of us, including our political leaders, look to as authorities in their particular disciplines at understanding the system and providing knowledgeable and moral guidance.
They make a show of providing such guidance (as indeed they must, because it is their profession and expected of them), but to put it bluntly, it's crap, on a par with the kind of guidance that a Galenic doctor might have given to an ailing patient, before the advent of modern medicine.
Western civilisation is like a patient with a terminal illness, which modern medicine would have no difficulty curing, but which the Galenic understanding and medicine of present-day social and political science academics will only hasten to his grave (continued in following post).
If I were to go back in time and point out their failing to Galenic doctors they would simply laugh and dismiss me. They wouldn't stand for anyone - certainly not me - challenging their authority.
And so it is today with the social and political sciences, which are still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age.
Yes, "pre-Darwinian". And stuck, because, in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism, a previous generation of academics made a taboo of applying Darwin's ideas to our own species, civilisation and situation.
The question is, can academics recognise and develop an understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of civilisation, which results in a perpetual cycle of civilisational boom and bust, before the approaching bust of our own civilisation catches up with us?
The realistic answer is, probably not. But for my part, at least, I will keep on trying, in the same spirit, I like to imagine, that Britain continued facing up to Nazi Germany, even after the fall of France, when there was no realistic chance of victory.
On its own, Britain was, of course, in a hopeless situation, but fate, in the form of Hitler himself declaring war, first on the Soviet Union and then on America, provided Britain with two powerful allies, who between them were able to defeat him. I can't help suspecting that at a subconscious level Hitler wanted to be defeated and to take as many fellow Germans and Europeans (including European Jews) with him as possible.
I'm in an analogous position to Britain in 1940, hoping that fate (or Providence) will intervene and that soon I will have some powerful allies in academia.
Here's a primer (not brilliant, but the best I have to offer) on what they need to understand: LINK
By Nicholas Kristof Feb. 6, 2016 (LINK to article)
"Millions of children continue to suffer brain impairment because of the greed of the lead industry."Funny how there is always someone else to blame, an individual (e.g. George Bush for the Iraq war), a company (e.g. Volkswagen for an emissions scandal), or a whole industry (e.g. the tobacco industry for delaying legislation restricting promotion of its harmful products).
What Mr Kristof overlooks is the bigger picture, which reveals the SYSTEM itself to be at fault, which ultimately - certainly in a democracy like America - we are all responsible and thus to blame for. However, this would involve much introspection and self-criticism, which we are not good at. We are far better at and disposed towards blaming others.
It is what the ancient Greeks and Romans did as their civilisations were declining. It is, I believe, what caused the decline and demise of all past civilisations, and will soon result in the precipitous decline and demise of our own, western, civilisation.
However, we are not all equally to blame. Most of the responsibility rests with academics, whom the rest of us, including our political leaders, look to as authorities in their particular disciplines at understanding the system and providing knowledgeable and moral guidance.
They make a show of providing such guidance (as indeed they must, because it is their profession and expected of them), but to put it bluntly, it's crap, on a par with the kind of guidance that a Galenic doctor might have given to an ailing patient, before the advent of modern medicine.
Western civilisation is like a patient with a terminal illness, which modern medicine would have no difficulty curing, but which the Galenic understanding and medicine of present-day social and political science academics will only hasten to his grave (continued in following post).
If I were to go back in time and point out their failing to Galenic doctors they would simply laugh and dismiss me. They wouldn't stand for anyone - certainly not me - challenging their authority.
And so it is today with the social and political sciences, which are still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age.
Yes, "pre-Darwinian". And stuck, because, in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism, a previous generation of academics made a taboo of applying Darwin's ideas to our own species, civilisation and situation.
The question is, can academics recognise and develop an understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of civilisation, which results in a perpetual cycle of civilisational boom and bust, before the approaching bust of our own civilisation catches up with us?
The realistic answer is, probably not. But for my part, at least, I will keep on trying, in the same spirit, I like to imagine, that Britain continued facing up to Nazi Germany, even after the fall of France, when there was no realistic chance of victory.
On its own, Britain was, of course, in a hopeless situation, but fate, in the form of Hitler himself declaring war, first on the Soviet Union and then on America, provided Britain with two powerful allies, who between them were able to defeat him. I can't help suspecting that at a subconscious level Hitler wanted to be defeated and to take as many fellow Germans and Europeans (including European Jews) with him as possible.
I'm in an analogous position to Britain in 1940, hoping that fate (or Providence) will intervene and that soon I will have some powerful allies in academia.
Here's a primer (not brilliant, but the best I have to offer) on what they need to understand: LINK
Sunday, 31 January 2016
America has Lost its Way
Trump, Sanders and the Revolt Against Decadence
By Ross Douthat Jan. 30, 2016 (LINK to article)
The truth is that America, along with the rest of western civilisation, has lost its way, which, interestingly, the NYT itself warns of in an editorial, The Price of Fear, following the Paris attacks, last November:
“In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way.”
This is an extremely dangerous and frightening situation to be in, and at the same time, very difficult to face up to. Most will simply dismiss me as a "doom-monger".
And it is not as if western civilisation were moving in the right direction before this overreaction to evil occurred. It wasn't. But it was in a much better position to recognise and develop an understanding of where it was going wrong.
This overreaction was to the evil of Nazism and everything (apart from German motorways) it was associated with.
The Nazis hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, some extremely important ideas, which, thanks largely to the misguided efforts of "anti-faschists", who made a moral imperative of this overreaction to Nazism, remain to this day, effectively, under Nazi occupation.
This included the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism, which resulted in a previous generation of academics making a taboo of applying Darwin's ideas to ourselves, our civilisation and situation altogether, which is what we urgently need to do, if we are to find the way to our future, rather than see our civilisation fail: The West's Overreaction to Nazism.
By Ross Douthat Jan. 30, 2016 (LINK to article)
The truth is that America, along with the rest of western civilisation, has lost its way, which, interestingly, the NYT itself warns of in an editorial, The Price of Fear, following the Paris attacks, last November:
“In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way.”
This is an extremely dangerous and frightening situation to be in, and at the same time, very difficult to face up to. Most will simply dismiss me as a "doom-monger".
And it is not as if western civilisation were moving in the right direction before this overreaction to evil occurred. It wasn't. But it was in a much better position to recognise and develop an understanding of where it was going wrong.
This overreaction was to the evil of Nazism and everything (apart from German motorways) it was associated with.
The Nazis hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, some extremely important ideas, which, thanks largely to the misguided efforts of "anti-faschists", who made a moral imperative of this overreaction to Nazism, remain to this day, effectively, under Nazi occupation.
This included the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism, which resulted in a previous generation of academics making a taboo of applying Darwin's ideas to ourselves, our civilisation and situation altogether, which is what we urgently need to do, if we are to find the way to our future, rather than see our civilisation fail: The West's Overreaction to Nazism.
Thursday, 21 January 2016
Civilisational Boom & Bust
What If?
By Thomas Friedman, Jan. 20 2016 (LINK to article)
What if consumer capitalism is inherently unsustainable on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, which I and many others recognised it to be more than 40 years ago, before Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher and Helmut Schmitt led the world in putting it into turbo mode?
We (mine and previous generations of white men) have screwed up badly, with America now leading western civilisation, and the rest of the world following, towards the abyss.
Not that I'm blaming America. A big part of our problem is that we all try to blame others for what's gone wrong, rather than admitting our own part in it.
Nothing new has gone wrong. Ever since the first states and civilisations emerged from a tribal society, they have been subject to a continuous cycle of civilisational boom and bust, just not on the global scale or level of technological development that we are now experiencing, or with such a huge dependent human population that will suffer the consequences.
It doesn't have to be like this, but to put an end to this cycle of boom and bust, we need to view and understand our own species and civilisation from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, which tragically, a previous generation of academics made a taboo of doing, in OVERREACTION to the Nazis having hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism for their own evil purposes.
It is probably too late now to avoid bust entirely, but it is not too late to reduce the scale and death toll. Here is where to START.
By Thomas Friedman, Jan. 20 2016 (LINK to article)
What if consumer capitalism is inherently unsustainable on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, which I and many others recognised it to be more than 40 years ago, before Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher and Helmut Schmitt led the world in putting it into turbo mode?
We (mine and previous generations of white men) have screwed up badly, with America now leading western civilisation, and the rest of the world following, towards the abyss.
Not that I'm blaming America. A big part of our problem is that we all try to blame others for what's gone wrong, rather than admitting our own part in it.
Nothing new has gone wrong. Ever since the first states and civilisations emerged from a tribal society, they have been subject to a continuous cycle of civilisational boom and bust, just not on the global scale or level of technological development that we are now experiencing, or with such a huge dependent human population that will suffer the consequences.
It doesn't have to be like this, but to put an end to this cycle of boom and bust, we need to view and understand our own species and civilisation from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, which tragically, a previous generation of academics made a taboo of doing, in OVERREACTION to the Nazis having hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism for their own evil purposes.
It is probably too late now to avoid bust entirely, but it is not too late to reduce the scale and death toll. Here is where to START.
Sunday, 10 January 2016
Need for Darwinian Understanding of Society
It’s Payback Time for Women
By Judith Shulevitz Jan. 8, 2016 (LINK to article)
Yes, Darwinian! Just because a previous generation of academics made a taboo of it (in OVERREACTION to the Nazis having hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism for their own evil purposes), doesn't make it any the less true.
In order to understand ourselves and our situation we HAVE to view them from a human-evolutionary perspective. The taboo against doing so does not make us morally superior, as supposed, but stupid, as testified to by the dire state of our civilisation and its propensity to self-harm and self-destruction.
If our civilisation is to survive this century it must quickly overcome its fear of crossing this bridge to a Darwinian understanding of itself and its situation.
The Nazis demonstrated only too well how NOT to go about it, plunging themselves and Germany into the abyss. I've made a fresh start (HERE), but I need academic support. It is not a bridge that I, or anyone else, can cross on their own.
By Judith Shulevitz Jan. 8, 2016 (LINK to article)
"it’s society that’s getting a free ride on women’s unrewarded contributions to the perpetuation of the human race."This reveals a complete, though typical, lack of understanding of the human condition and situation - which is Darwinian.
Yes, Darwinian! Just because a previous generation of academics made a taboo of it (in OVERREACTION to the Nazis having hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism for their own evil purposes), doesn't make it any the less true.
In order to understand ourselves and our situation we HAVE to view them from a human-evolutionary perspective. The taboo against doing so does not make us morally superior, as supposed, but stupid, as testified to by the dire state of our civilisation and its propensity to self-harm and self-destruction.
If our civilisation is to survive this century it must quickly overcome its fear of crossing this bridge to a Darwinian understanding of itself and its situation.
The Nazis demonstrated only too well how NOT to go about it, plunging themselves and Germany into the abyss. I've made a fresh start (HERE), but I need academic support. It is not a bridge that I, or anyone else, can cross on their own.
Tuesday, 29 December 2015
Fate of the West in the Balance
Cracks in the Liberal Order
By Ross Douthat Dec. 26, 2015 (LINK to article)
I submitted two comments on this article, both of which, after some delay, were approved and published, but I thought that I would publish them here anyway.
First Post:
And why would they WANT to recognise it, given how well "the current order" works for them?
The human brain surely evolved to want to maintain the environment on which it depends, especially when it has been relatively successful within it, as everyone who is anyone in society invariably has been, and rationalises its view of social, political and economic reality accordingly.
We (especially academics) are bound to see ourselves as a "rational animal", when in fact we are far more a "rationalising animal", which means that unlike in the material sciences, where our models of reality now correlate closely with it, in the social sciences they don't. Thus the author's difficulty in "imagining the basic liberal democratic capitalist order cracking up".
The current order is indeed on course to crack up, and if we want something better, rather than worse, to come of it, we urgently need a much better model of the reality of our situation: http://philosopherkin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/civilisation-evolutionary-cul-de-sac.html
Second Post:
And because of their lack of a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, the present-day social and political sciences are still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age.
Responsible for this is something the NYT's Editorial Board itself warns of in a recent editorial, The Price of Fear:
Healthy Darwinian nature serves' a population's survival, while perverted Darwinian nature leads to its demise. What do I mean by "population"? That is something that needs to be discussed, but we can't discuss, or arrive at an understanding of anything, so long as this taboo remains in place.
By Ross Douthat Dec. 26, 2015 (LINK to article)
I submitted two comments on this article, both of which, after some delay, were approved and published, but I thought that I would publish them here anyway.
First Post:
"late-modern liberalism might have a certain tendency toward suicide"EVERY civilisation tends towards suicide, because of their perverted Darwinian nature, which, because of the taboo a previous generation of academics placed on viewing our own species from an evolutionary perspective (an OVERREACTION to the Nazis having hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism for their own evil purposes), there has been a failure to recognise.
And why would they WANT to recognise it, given how well "the current order" works for them?
The human brain surely evolved to want to maintain the environment on which it depends, especially when it has been relatively successful within it, as everyone who is anyone in society invariably has been, and rationalises its view of social, political and economic reality accordingly.
We (especially academics) are bound to see ourselves as a "rational animal", when in fact we are far more a "rationalising animal", which means that unlike in the material sciences, where our models of reality now correlate closely with it, in the social sciences they don't. Thus the author's difficulty in "imagining the basic liberal democratic capitalist order cracking up".
The current order is indeed on course to crack up, and if we want something better, rather than worse, to come of it, we urgently need a much better model of the reality of our situation: http://philosopherkin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/civilisation-evolutionary-cul-de-sac.html
Second Post:
"it’s been hard to imagine the basic liberal democratic capitalist order cracking up . . "The Germans have a word for this: Zweckoptimismus (self-serving optimism).
" . . let alone envision what might take its place."Looking back to premodern times, would Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists, or Galenic doctors have been able to imagine what would one day replace their "sciences" and their world? I think not.
And because of their lack of a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, the present-day social and political sciences are still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age.
Responsible for this is something the NYT's Editorial Board itself warns of in a recent editorial, The Price of Fear:
“In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism comes the risk that society will lose its way."Western civilisation has indeed lost its way, in overreaction to Nazism, which hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism for its own evil purposes, making a taboo of the whole idea of viewing ourselves, our civilisation and situation from a human-evolutionary perspective, thus blinding us to its perverted Darwinian nature.
Healthy Darwinian nature serves' a population's survival, while perverted Darwinian nature leads to its demise. What do I mean by "population"? That is something that needs to be discussed, but we can't discuss, or arrive at an understanding of anything, so long as this taboo remains in place.
Thursday, 3 December 2015
America is Suffering from Gunoholism
On Guns, We’re Not Even Trying
By Nicholas Kristof, Dec. 2 2015 (LINK to aryticle)
To a European like myself, it is tempting to dismiss America's gun problem as just weak will, but I have come to realise that America is in fact, metaphorically speaking, a "gunoholic", the reasons for which, as with alcoholism, lie deep in the history and very nature of American society itself.
Europe has its own, equally serious, problems, of course, the causes of which also lie deep in the roots of our civilisation, which are also the roots of American civilisation.
As in the case of individual alcoholism, the first obstacle to overcoming it is to recognise and admit to oneself that one actually has a serious problem that one needs help with. America reminds me of a successful businessman, or woman, who is also an alcoholic, but refuses to face up to it, not least, because it hasn't prevented them from being successful at making a lot of money, notwithstanding the difficulties it makes in their relationships with others and the damage it is doing to their liver, which is leading them to an early death.
If America is to help and cure itself, before it suffers organ failure, it (especially its academics) must seek help from a human-evolutionary perspective on the origins and nature of western civilisation, which will take them to the root cause of the problem, which is about more than just "gunoholism". It will be a difficult, painful and frightening journey, but it's the only way to effect a cure and avoid the premature demise of western civilisation.
See BLOG in which I elaborate on this issue.
By Nicholas Kristof, Dec. 2 2015 (LINK to aryticle)
To a European like myself, it is tempting to dismiss America's gun problem as just weak will, but I have come to realise that America is in fact, metaphorically speaking, a "gunoholic", the reasons for which, as with alcoholism, lie deep in the history and very nature of American society itself.
Europe has its own, equally serious, problems, of course, the causes of which also lie deep in the roots of our civilisation, which are also the roots of American civilisation.
As in the case of individual alcoholism, the first obstacle to overcoming it is to recognise and admit to oneself that one actually has a serious problem that one needs help with. America reminds me of a successful businessman, or woman, who is also an alcoholic, but refuses to face up to it, not least, because it hasn't prevented them from being successful at making a lot of money, notwithstanding the difficulties it makes in their relationships with others and the damage it is doing to their liver, which is leading them to an early death.
If America is to help and cure itself, before it suffers organ failure, it (especially its academics) must seek help from a human-evolutionary perspective on the origins and nature of western civilisation, which will take them to the root cause of the problem, which is about more than just "gunoholism". It will be a difficult, painful and frightening journey, but it's the only way to effect a cure and avoid the premature demise of western civilisation.
See BLOG in which I elaborate on this issue.
Monday, 16 November 2015
Rome Didn't Fall in a Day
‘Trust’ in the News Media Has Come to Mean Affirmation
By Brooke Gladstone, Nov. 12 2015 (LINK to article)
It is a well-know truism: united we stand, divided we fall, so can anyone seriously doubt that our civilisation (not just America, but the West in general) is falling?
Rome didn't fall in a day, and it wasn't clear until after the event, which took centuries, that it had actually happened. Our civilisation is falling a lot faster, but still too slowly for most individuals to notice, especially when the system is still working for them and they are preoccupied with daily life.
It is inconceivable to most people that our civilisation could be over before this present century is, but that, I believe, is the course we are on.
And no, I'm not a "doom monger", but a realist, who can see where we are heading. I'm not the only one, of course. Others see it too, but tend to assume that nothing can be done about it. I disagree. I think that we could do a lot about it, if only we understood the nature of our situation, which, unfortunately, we don't, or rather, the academics we look to as authorities on such matters don't. And that's what counts.
If you will forgive my presumptuousness, I believe that I have a much better understanding of our situation, which I elaborate on in this BLOG.
By Brooke Gladstone, Nov. 12 2015 (LINK to article)
It is a well-know truism: united we stand, divided we fall, so can anyone seriously doubt that our civilisation (not just America, but the West in general) is falling?
Rome didn't fall in a day, and it wasn't clear until after the event, which took centuries, that it had actually happened. Our civilisation is falling a lot faster, but still too slowly for most individuals to notice, especially when the system is still working for them and they are preoccupied with daily life.
It is inconceivable to most people that our civilisation could be over before this present century is, but that, I believe, is the course we are on.
And no, I'm not a "doom monger", but a realist, who can see where we are heading. I'm not the only one, of course. Others see it too, but tend to assume that nothing can be done about it. I disagree. I think that we could do a lot about it, if only we understood the nature of our situation, which, unfortunately, we don't, or rather, the academics we look to as authorities on such matters don't. And that's what counts.
If you will forgive my presumptuousness, I believe that I have a much better understanding of our situation, which I elaborate on in this BLOG.
Monday, 9 November 2015
White Americans: A Dying Race
Despair, American Style
By Paul Krugman, Nov. 9 2015 (LINK to article)
The "style" of this despair may be American, but the cause is as ancient as civilisation itself, because inherently associated with it.
Academics give us a rosy-eyed view of civilisation, because, unlike the majority of people, they belong to one of its privileged elites and have a massive personal self-interest in rationalising and defending it.
The truth, which academics are loath to admit - even to themselves - is that the state, as the basic unit of any civilisation is a social, i.e. economic and power-political, construct, with the primary purpose of facilitating society's SELF-exploitation, to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense, and ultimate self-destruction, of society at large.
Even if they admit this about the past, which with hindsight it is difficult to deny, most academics still expect us to believe that with the advent of the American Revolution, Democracy and universal suffrage everything changed, but it didn't.
How are we (especially academics) to see what we have a narrow and short-sighted personal self-interest in not seeing? By viewing ourselves and our situation from a human-evolutionary perspective: LINK to blog in which I elaborate.
By Paul Krugman, Nov. 9 2015 (LINK to article)
The "style" of this despair may be American, but the cause is as ancient as civilisation itself, because inherently associated with it.
Academics give us a rosy-eyed view of civilisation, because, unlike the majority of people, they belong to one of its privileged elites and have a massive personal self-interest in rationalising and defending it.
The truth, which academics are loath to admit - even to themselves - is that the state, as the basic unit of any civilisation is a social, i.e. economic and power-political, construct, with the primary purpose of facilitating society's SELF-exploitation, to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense, and ultimate self-destruction, of society at large.
Even if they admit this about the past, which with hindsight it is difficult to deny, most academics still expect us to believe that with the advent of the American Revolution, Democracy and universal suffrage everything changed, but it didn't.
How are we (especially academics) to see what we have a narrow and short-sighted personal self-interest in not seeing? By viewing ourselves and our situation from a human-evolutionary perspective: LINK to blog in which I elaborate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)