No doubt the negative cumulative impacts our lizard brains have and continue to have on "others" including Mother Earth and her carrying capacity are devastating and urgently need shifting as you conclude. Maybe this is because for 30+ thousand years now, ever since our brains have created language and self awareness it seems our "external worlds" have developed at a far more faster rate then our "internal" worlds. The more we let our hearts rather then lizard brains lead us the more we are being the change/shift so needed now. PEACE XX
If you want to understand the panicked monkey, the best place to begin would be the Russian oligarchy. Pure acquisitiveness and materialism at its most primal. Possession of the biggest, best, fastest, most expensive is pure status. It matters not the corruption or the stack of bodies one must climb to acquire such wealth, only that one attains it. It goes without saying that it comes with the youngest, hottest, most willing and nubile women.
Underneath it all, though, I can't help but wonder how scared the oligarchs are that it could all disappear in the flash of an assassin's silencer. Because none of it's real and none of it's intended to last. It's merely a placeholder that will last only until someone smarter, richer, and more ruthless comes along to dethrone and decapitate you.
It's a dog-eat-dog world, and everyone's wearing Milk-Bone underwear.
That last line should be on a damn T-shirt. Freaking brilliant.
John and I have been watching THE WORLD AT WAR, a 26-episode series from the late seventies, I believe, narrated by the great Laurence Olivier. In defense of their own country, the Russians were incredible. They were the toughest, most impressive mfers on the planet. I can't believe what they endured.
They should be ashamed of what they've become now: petty, homicidal, materialistic, gross. Someone should hold up a mirror and let them see how unworthy they are now compared to who they were before. The difference is shocking.
I LOVE THE WORLD AT WAR. I used to watch that on Sunday nights with my Dad when I was a kid. I've always been an amateur military historian (I was a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve once upon a time), and I, too, was astonished at the sacrifices the Russians made to defend their homeland. Their army now isn't even a shadow of its WWII self. Petty, homicidal, materialistic, and gross sums it up nicely. I'd also add unprofessional, inept, corrupt, and poorly trained.
Putin thinks he has an army. What is has is a Potemkin village dressed up as an army.
Well said and I find the world very scary, like you. We appear incapable of major change, which will likely kill us in the end. Or most of us, some may survive, we have in the past.
Right? I'm not much of a Bible person, but I am often reminded of the part where the "meek shall inherit the earth." Can't help but to wonder if that wasn't meant literally.
Typo in the first full paragraph, and since I'm the first person here I'll get it out of the way: I'm pretty sure you meant "two HUNDRED thousand" or even "million" years ago, rather than just two thousand.
I am less convinced than you that everything can be reduced to selfish motives. We *are* community animals, and many of our actions are ones that accrue no possible benefit to ourselves. This is also a problem for evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins and his "selfish gene" business. But altruism in animals including humans is the shoal on which that ship founders. (There, finally! An unmixed metaphor!)
Speaking of two thousand (plus five hundred) years ago, Plato's dialog 'Crito' presenting a communitarian argument for why he refuses to accept the argument to escape Athens after his death sentence (which, if we are to believe the 'Apology,' he pretty much bullied the Athenian citizenry into imposing after his guilty sentence.) The argument bears many points in common with yours above, but adds the interesting fact that it is made in an urban civilization rather than a troop of hunter gatherers in the field.
One thesis based on the monkey-brain concept is that women are attracted to good providers while men are attracted to good breeders. But what qualifies as a "provider" is more complicated than just physical prowess or money. One of the things I noticed in academia was how female grad students were almost always attracted to male grad students who were a few years ahead of them in their studies. (Also, when they weren't being monstrously stupid and banging a professor. That *NEVER* ended well.) So the "prowess" in this context was greater academic standing. Depending on how far they took it (marriage, for example) the result was a crippling of the woman's own academic aspirations, since she had to put her finishing the program and then going out on the market on hold for the guy who was out on the market before her.
Yes, that's a typo. Thank you for reminding me to fix it. Funny how you can read something over and over again and keep seeing something that isn't there.
Here's a question for you. An old friend of ours, a very smart man like you, posited that we are only capable of psychological health when we remain in small family groups. Once we attempt to cohabitate in urban civilization, we're doomed. What are your thoughts?
I'm inclined to argue that that thesis is predicated on some rather old -- and in many respects largely debunked -- theories about human development, especially since the end of the last ice age; so this would include the so-called "agricultural revolution." However a "revolution" that takes 4,000 years or more to transpire does not seem very "revolutionary."
I'm currently in a reading group that is tackling "The Dawn of Everything." By "reading group," I mean we connect via Zoom and take turns reading aloud from the book. It does not make for swift reading, but it is a lot of fun. And while a number of folks have argued that the book is problematic on a variety of levels, it does bring up a great deal of information from the archaeological record that really puts the stories we've told ourselves about how we got "here" into a new light.
I mention this because I would already have been skeptical of your friend's argument before, especially from my readings of such things as Lewis Mumford's "The City in History." (Terrific book, by the way; can't recommend it enough.) At some point, Mumford quips something to the effect of, "the purpose of the city is to enhance conversation." Urban cohabitation can be good or bad -- like most things. Much of our urban design is abominable; places like Houston, Los Angeles, San Jose are not cities, they are growths. The automobile did that, making possible the nightmare ideal of the suburban home an actualizable horror.
The idea that small family groups are the only possible source of psychological health makes me physically ill. Had that been my only option when growing up, I really would have hanged myself when I was 12, instead of just climbing into the rafters of the garage with a rope and thinking about it. Small family/tribal groups are the root basis for all forms of bigotry and xenophobia, which is why all forms of white supremacist racism always close ranks around a small knot of dogmas, regardless of incoherence, because it fabricates that sense of "family."
But that pathology is not coming from the broader, "urbane" world. It is coming from a sick sense of "family," of tribalism that requires absolute homogeneity. It is precisely that intransigent refusal to grow that must be broken down for psychological health, not retreated back into. Those siloed, locked down "small family units" are the problem, not the solution.
Jesus. At twelve? You break my heart. It must have been an AWFUL time in your life. Was it your mother or father--or both? Terrible, what families can do to each other.
I always make a note of your book recommendations.
No doubt the negative cumulative impacts our lizard brains have and continue to have on "others" including Mother Earth and her carrying capacity are devastating and urgently need shifting as you conclude. Maybe this is because for 30+ thousand years now, ever since our brains have created language and self awareness it seems our "external worlds" have developed at a far more faster rate then our "internal" worlds. The more we let our hearts rather then lizard brains lead us the more we are being the change/shift so needed now. PEACE XX
I love what you wrote here. THANK YOU.
If you want to understand the panicked monkey, the best place to begin would be the Russian oligarchy. Pure acquisitiveness and materialism at its most primal. Possession of the biggest, best, fastest, most expensive is pure status. It matters not the corruption or the stack of bodies one must climb to acquire such wealth, only that one attains it. It goes without saying that it comes with the youngest, hottest, most willing and nubile women.
Underneath it all, though, I can't help but wonder how scared the oligarchs are that it could all disappear in the flash of an assassin's silencer. Because none of it's real and none of it's intended to last. It's merely a placeholder that will last only until someone smarter, richer, and more ruthless comes along to dethrone and decapitate you.
It's a dog-eat-dog world, and everyone's wearing Milk-Bone underwear.
That last line should be on a damn T-shirt. Freaking brilliant.
John and I have been watching THE WORLD AT WAR, a 26-episode series from the late seventies, I believe, narrated by the great Laurence Olivier. In defense of their own country, the Russians were incredible. They were the toughest, most impressive mfers on the planet. I can't believe what they endured.
They should be ashamed of what they've become now: petty, homicidal, materialistic, gross. Someone should hold up a mirror and let them see how unworthy they are now compared to who they were before. The difference is shocking.
I LOVE THE WORLD AT WAR. I used to watch that on Sunday nights with my Dad when I was a kid. I've always been an amateur military historian (I was a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve once upon a time), and I, too, was astonished at the sacrifices the Russians made to defend their homeland. Their army now isn't even a shadow of its WWII self. Petty, homicidal, materialistic, and gross sums it up nicely. I'd also add unprofessional, inept, corrupt, and poorly trained.
Putin thinks he has an army. What is has is a Potemkin village dressed up as an army.
Hear hear!
Well said and I find the world very scary, like you. We appear incapable of major change, which will likely kill us in the end. Or most of us, some may survive, we have in the past.
Right? I'm not much of a Bible person, but I am often reminded of the part where the "meek shall inherit the earth." Can't help but to wonder if that wasn't meant literally.
Wow, never thought of that. Could be true.
Typo in the first full paragraph, and since I'm the first person here I'll get it out of the way: I'm pretty sure you meant "two HUNDRED thousand" or even "million" years ago, rather than just two thousand.
I am less convinced than you that everything can be reduced to selfish motives. We *are* community animals, and many of our actions are ones that accrue no possible benefit to ourselves. This is also a problem for evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins and his "selfish gene" business. But altruism in animals including humans is the shoal on which that ship founders. (There, finally! An unmixed metaphor!)
Speaking of two thousand (plus five hundred) years ago, Plato's dialog 'Crito' presenting a communitarian argument for why he refuses to accept the argument to escape Athens after his death sentence (which, if we are to believe the 'Apology,' he pretty much bullied the Athenian citizenry into imposing after his guilty sentence.) The argument bears many points in common with yours above, but adds the interesting fact that it is made in an urban civilization rather than a troop of hunter gatherers in the field.
One thesis based on the monkey-brain concept is that women are attracted to good providers while men are attracted to good breeders. But what qualifies as a "provider" is more complicated than just physical prowess or money. One of the things I noticed in academia was how female grad students were almost always attracted to male grad students who were a few years ahead of them in their studies. (Also, when they weren't being monstrously stupid and banging a professor. That *NEVER* ended well.) So the "prowess" in this context was greater academic standing. Depending on how far they took it (marriage, for example) the result was a crippling of the woman's own academic aspirations, since she had to put her finishing the program and then going out on the market on hold for the guy who was out on the market before her.
Yes, that's a typo. Thank you for reminding me to fix it. Funny how you can read something over and over again and keep seeing something that isn't there.
Here's a question for you. An old friend of ours, a very smart man like you, posited that we are only capable of psychological health when we remain in small family groups. Once we attempt to cohabitate in urban civilization, we're doomed. What are your thoughts?
I'm inclined to argue that that thesis is predicated on some rather old -- and in many respects largely debunked -- theories about human development, especially since the end of the last ice age; so this would include the so-called "agricultural revolution." However a "revolution" that takes 4,000 years or more to transpire does not seem very "revolutionary."
I'm currently in a reading group that is tackling "The Dawn of Everything." By "reading group," I mean we connect via Zoom and take turns reading aloud from the book. It does not make for swift reading, but it is a lot of fun. And while a number of folks have argued that the book is problematic on a variety of levels, it does bring up a great deal of information from the archaeological record that really puts the stories we've told ourselves about how we got "here" into a new light.
I mention this because I would already have been skeptical of your friend's argument before, especially from my readings of such things as Lewis Mumford's "The City in History." (Terrific book, by the way; can't recommend it enough.) At some point, Mumford quips something to the effect of, "the purpose of the city is to enhance conversation." Urban cohabitation can be good or bad -- like most things. Much of our urban design is abominable; places like Houston, Los Angeles, San Jose are not cities, they are growths. The automobile did that, making possible the nightmare ideal of the suburban home an actualizable horror.
The idea that small family groups are the only possible source of psychological health makes me physically ill. Had that been my only option when growing up, I really would have hanged myself when I was 12, instead of just climbing into the rafters of the garage with a rope and thinking about it. Small family/tribal groups are the root basis for all forms of bigotry and xenophobia, which is why all forms of white supremacist racism always close ranks around a small knot of dogmas, regardless of incoherence, because it fabricates that sense of "family."
But that pathology is not coming from the broader, "urbane" world. It is coming from a sick sense of "family," of tribalism that requires absolute homogeneity. It is precisely that intransigent refusal to grow that must be broken down for psychological health, not retreated back into. Those siloed, locked down "small family units" are the problem, not the solution.
Jesus. At twelve? You break my heart. It must have been an AWFUL time in your life. Was it your mother or father--or both? Terrible, what families can do to each other.
I always make a note of your book recommendations.
On reflection, it might have been 14. I ended up blocking out a lot of those memories.