Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
> >> >I think that there is an essential human nature, but the only thing that
> is
> >> >essential and primordial about this nature is its potential to be
> >> >constructed into a particular kind of nature. The potential is the basis
> >> >for the manipulation. Which raises all sorts of questions
> >> >about the human individual. To what degree does s/he have a choice over
> >> >who or what s/he becomes. Are the institutions of power etc, all
> >> >encompassing.
> >>
>
> i live in holland and a few weeks ago someone was killed in a fight between
> supporters of soccer-clubs. what happened was that both groups had arranged a
> fight using mobile phones. during the battle one group fled, leaving only one
> man, who continued to fight. the amazing thing was that he was beaten to death
> by a group in rage. afterwards the men who participated didn't inderstand what
> came over them. people who have experienced war have told me that at first
> they didn't want to kill anyone, but felt their attitude changed drastically
> the moment someone got hurt. our ancesters had to fight in order to survive.
> each tribe had to protect itself and aech tribe tried ot maximize the
> foodsupplies. if it was succesfull, it made slave of other tribes. this is
> still happing today, but the socalled civilized countries have agreed to fight
> with money. it's more sufficient and you still make the week tribes ypur
> slave. how many people have been starved to death or killed by dangerous work,
> you think? how many people died because of tsjernobil? and don't say that
> those are accidents, it are calculated risks, and we live in a risk-society,
> where people are killed by calculated risks.
>
>
> i don't think the discussion becomes clearer if you shift from 'we' to 'me'
> (or lubna) maybe i did and i'm a homocidal maniac; maybe i don't and i'm a
> reincarnation of a saint, so what? besides: can you garantee to recall every
> thought you ever had? how do you know that you didn't wanted to kill anyone
> several times, but simply forgot because you wanted to be a pacifist?
>
> your argument sounds like: 'of course we're both martians, otherwise we
> wouldn't
> understand each other!'
> if it were our nature to communicate, like it's our nature to breathe, we
> would't be able to stop communicating, like we cannot stop breathing. i can
> however stop communicating, so it's also my nature to stop communication and
> even to be silent or to ly, or to throw a bomb. if the human nature is active,
> there's no way it could stop. if it's a hidden ability, everything anyone ever
> does becomes part of human nature and the concept becomes useless, because it
> doesn't explain anything anymore (maximal extension = minimal intension)
> furthermore, the question of how it becomes active and how it stops will still
> be unanswered. besides i still prefer to think of myself as communicating because i have something to say and not because there's an anonymous nature working inside me. (i will not blame you if you think otherwise)
>
> erikh
hello. firstly, the discussion began by someone, maybe you i've lost
track, asserting that it is our nature to kill each other. i said that
if it were our nature, i.e. natural, normal, nothing extraordinary, to
kill one another, then killing would be a normal thing to happen.
however, killing itsn't a normal happening. yes, it happens. but it is
extraordinary, not normal. war and other group killings, like your
example of the soccer club is not normal. one person killing another
person is not normal. and if it were our nature to kill, then my
switching the discussion from "we" to "you" or "me" is perfectly
legitimate.
secondly, even though you think differently, it is our nature to
communicate. and while we do not communicate all the time, like your
example that we breathe all the time, this does not mean that it is not
our nature to communicate. we do not have sex all the time, yet having
sex is certainly our nature. and using your logic--that if something is
our nature we do it all the time, like breathing, then killing one
another is certainly not our nature, as we do not do it al the time.
and besides, communication involves more than just talking. body
language: gestures, eye contact, and spatial relations(distance from
one another and orientation to one another) are also forms of
communication. and being silent, lying, and throwing a bomb are also
communicating. have you ever received the "silent treatment?" and
lying is communicating what you want to communicate. were there no need
to communicate, there would be no need to lie. also, throwing a bomb is
sending a message, i.e. communicating.
> >> >I think that there is an essential human nature, but the only thing that
> is
> >> >essential and primordial about this nature is its potential to be
> >> >constructed into a particular kind of nature. The potential is the basis
> >> >for the manipulation. Which raises all sorts of questions
> >> >about the human individual. To what degree does s/he have a choice over
> >> >who or what s/he becomes. Are the institutions of power etc, all
> >> >encompassing.
> >>
>
> i live in holland and a few weeks ago someone was killed in a fight between
> supporters of soccer-clubs. what happened was that both groups had arranged a
> fight using mobile phones. during the battle one group fled, leaving only one
> man, who continued to fight. the amazing thing was that he was beaten to death
> by a group in rage. afterwards the men who participated didn't inderstand what
> came over them. people who have experienced war have told me that at first
> they didn't want to kill anyone, but felt their attitude changed drastically
> the moment someone got hurt. our ancesters had to fight in order to survive.
> each tribe had to protect itself and aech tribe tried ot maximize the
> foodsupplies. if it was succesfull, it made slave of other tribes. this is
> still happing today, but the socalled civilized countries have agreed to fight
> with money. it's more sufficient and you still make the week tribes ypur
> slave. how many people have been starved to death or killed by dangerous work,
> you think? how many people died because of tsjernobil? and don't say that
> those are accidents, it are calculated risks, and we live in a risk-society,
> where people are killed by calculated risks.
>
>
> i don't think the discussion becomes clearer if you shift from 'we' to 'me'
> (or lubna) maybe i did and i'm a homocidal maniac; maybe i don't and i'm a
> reincarnation of a saint, so what? besides: can you garantee to recall every
> thought you ever had? how do you know that you didn't wanted to kill anyone
> several times, but simply forgot because you wanted to be a pacifist?
>
> your argument sounds like: 'of course we're both martians, otherwise we
> wouldn't
> understand each other!'
> if it were our nature to communicate, like it's our nature to breathe, we
> would't be able to stop communicating, like we cannot stop breathing. i can
> however stop communicating, so it's also my nature to stop communication and
> even to be silent or to ly, or to throw a bomb. if the human nature is active,
> there's no way it could stop. if it's a hidden ability, everything anyone ever
> does becomes part of human nature and the concept becomes useless, because it
> doesn't explain anything anymore (maximal extension = minimal intension)
> furthermore, the question of how it becomes active and how it stops will still
> be unanswered. besides i still prefer to think of myself as communicating because i have something to say and not because there's an anonymous nature working inside me. (i will not blame you if you think otherwise)
>
> erikh
hello. firstly, the discussion began by someone, maybe you i've lost
track, asserting that it is our nature to kill each other. i said that
if it were our nature, i.e. natural, normal, nothing extraordinary, to
kill one another, then killing would be a normal thing to happen.
however, killing itsn't a normal happening. yes, it happens. but it is
extraordinary, not normal. war and other group killings, like your
example of the soccer club is not normal. one person killing another
person is not normal. and if it were our nature to kill, then my
switching the discussion from "we" to "you" or "me" is perfectly
legitimate.
secondly, even though you think differently, it is our nature to
communicate. and while we do not communicate all the time, like your
example that we breathe all the time, this does not mean that it is not
our nature to communicate. we do not have sex all the time, yet having
sex is certainly our nature. and using your logic--that if something is
our nature we do it all the time, like breathing, then killing one
another is certainly not our nature, as we do not do it al the time.
and besides, communication involves more than just talking. body
language: gestures, eye contact, and spatial relations(distance from
one another and orientation to one another) are also forms of
communication. and being silent, lying, and throwing a bomb are also
communicating. have you ever received the "silent treatment?" and
lying is communicating what you want to communicate. were there no need
to communicate, there would be no need to lie. also, throwing a bomb is
sending a message, i.e. communicating.