Thursday, January 8, 2009

thought of the day.178

We will only become fully human—fully humane— when we overcome our primitive instinct to divide the world, when there’s no longer a “them”, no “other”—just “we”.
Posted by at

22 comments:

homesicksooner said...

So, we are not fully human until we are humane?

If I am to take your notion of humane and use your own "logic of labeling," then humane is just a label for something that's an illusion.

January 9, 2009 at 5:18 AM
john evans said...

Humans are not, never were, nor never will be “finished” products. Our circle of compassion has continually expanded over millions of years making us more and more human. A particularly brutal person might be described as an “animal” whereas an especially compassionate person a “humanitarian.”

January 9, 2009 at 7:04 AM
homesicksooner said...

Humans are now what they always have been.

We might know more (or less), we might be more compasionate (or less) and so on. We might have a greater opportunity to learn (or less for that matter).

Humans are humans no matter what they know or how they behave.

January 9, 2009 at 7:38 AM
john evans said...

The point in history where we say humans “began” and our less than human ancestory was left behind is hardly definitive. And if we look forward a million years, “humans” may be much different. The point is we, as all things, are in a state of flux. Ever evolving.

By the way, there is a very cool article in Scientific America this month on human origins.

January 9, 2009 at 7:58 AM
homesicksooner said...

"The point in history where we say humans “began” and our less than human ancestry was left behind is hardly definitive."

Then why is it always spoken about by scientists as fact?

Are you saying that everything, at all times, in every way, is in a state of flux?

January 9, 2009 at 8:23 AM
john evans said...

It is fact. The point I was trying to make is though we have a good time “frame” of transition, no one can possibly point to one specific fossil and say this person was not quite human but her child was.

There is debate over whether humans mated with Neanderthals who were remarkably similar to modern human but not quite the same. What would those children be considered? Nature is very messy, very connected.

All things at all times are in flux at some level. Maybe not often at a level perceptive to us but nonetheless nothing is completely static.

January 9, 2009 at 9:55 AM
homesicksooner said...

If the change was so slow as you say, why is there no evidence in the fossil record?

Why don't they call it a fact then. They call it a theory.

More importantly, if evolution is fact, why don't scientists call it a scientific law?

"Nature is very messy, very connected." Almost incestuous, huh?

January 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM
homesicksooner said...

If everything is in a state of flux, can there be any fixed reference point that just "is"?

January 9, 2009 at 10:10 AM
john evans said...

We are sliding into the topic of evolution. I have found this to be an exasperating and fruitless tpoic of debate. If the mountain of scientific evidence from every branch of science for evolution does not sway you I certainly can’t.

some helpful info on terminolgy:

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery
, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

January 9, 2009 at 10:31 AM
homesicksooner said...

Before we talk about evolution, answer this question.

If everything is in a state of flux, can there be any fixed reference point that just "is"? Something that doesn't change?

January 9, 2009 at 11:43 AM
john evans said...

Not based on scientific evidence. The more we know about reality at the atomic and sub atomic levels the more freaky things get.

As far as being practical for day to day functioning it may be useful to think of certain things as static. But in reality nothing is.

It was certainly useful to think of a Law giver as something that “just is”. Unchanging. Perfect. etc.

At a primitive stage in the formation of civilizations it was useful to write laws on a big rock for all to see. Saying those laws came from a god imbued them with supernatural authority.

Saying one would be rewarded or punished by the maker of those laws and that the god was always watching gave socities an ever present police force that was internalized in each person.

Fundamentalist beliefs about “god” today are a holdover of those early beginnings of civilization.

January 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM
homesicksooner said...

This notion that all things are in a state of flux and there is no constant is logically inconsistent.

You can't make such a claim without referring to at least one thing that isn't in a state of flux.

There are fundamentalist beliefs held by both theists and atheists that are a holdover from early beginnings of civilization.

Heraclitus of Ephesus, one of the pre-socratic philosophers, was was a monist who said, "everything that is, is in a state of flux." This is one of the fundamentalist of atheism.

January 9, 2009 at 1:28 PM
john evans said...

Actually it would be inconsistent to say all things are in a state of flux but then point to one that wasn’t.

And logic breaks down at the quantum physics level. Clearly reality cares nothing for our reasoning powers—or lack thereof.

January 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM
homesicksooner said...

Logic breaks down at the quantum physics level?

How do you know that's true?

January 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM
john evans said...

When I say logic breaks down, I mean to say at a very small particle size, matter behaves very, very strangely.

an example:
As Richard Feynman was fond of pointing out, the strangeness of the quantum world is encapsulated in "the experiment with two holes". If electrons (or photons, the "particles of light") are fired one at a time through a standard Young's double slit type of experiment and arrive at a detector screen on the other side, they leave the "gun" on one side of the experiment as particles, and arrive at the screen on the other side of the two slits as particles, each making a single spot on the screen. But somehow they pass through the two slits in between as waves, interfering with one another (even though they pass through one at a time!) so that the pattern built up on the screen by the accumulation of spots is an interference pattern.
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm

January 9, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Janet Greene said...

It's frustrating reading the comments on this - homesicksooner, you do you seem to argue your point at all.

Clearly things are always in a state of flux. Anyone with a grade 9 science class can tell you that. All matter is in perpetual motion. The only constant is change. Even my body is changing; we are eliminating cells and creating new ones every minute. We are never the same from one moment to the next.

A little off topic, but it is on the subject of "being human":

I was taught that the bible says we must be PERFECT to enter heaven. This is a silly condition, imposed by Paul (if I remember correctly). Who says we need to be perfect? why should perfection be the standard? We will never be perfect, but we can aspire to be as fully human as possible. To me, that means not being able to face my feelings; expressing myself (but try not to hurt others in the process); learn; read; discuss; acquire wisdom. This is our job.

Further on perfection: I am struck by the similarities of fundamentalist christianity and Hollywood. Both are obsessed with perfection; both are obsessed with sex (christianity represses it, hollywood exploits it - both unhealthy); Both say they are about content, but they are largely about image. Both claim that they are happy, but if you look at the long faces in church, and the botched plastic surgery in hollywood, you just know something is amiss.

Just a few thoughts...

January 12, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Janet Greene said...

Sorry about the typos in my last comment; I meant to say you SHOULD "feel your feelings", not run away from them. I find that many times whenever christians feel bad, they think it's sinful and they try to pray away their sadness or anger. But grief and anger are natural emotions that are there for a reason. We must acknowledge them and respect them, then not let them control us. Christians tend to pray away their feelings, then are surprised when they explode in anger, or become physically or mentally ill.

I know all about this. I spent over 30 years not feeling; to feel was to be sad, angry, terrified, or guilty. It was all from christianity. I was NEVER TAUGHT about how to attain and maintain good mental health. I became addicted to everything; shopping, work, school, reading, shopping, then eventually smoking and cocaine. I was trying to "not feel". It is when I rejected christianity that I could shed all my preconceptions about my feelings being sinful, and realized that I can love and trust myself so when I feel something, it's for my own protection.

Rambling again - can't seem to help myself!

January 12, 2009 at 11:13 AM
john evans said...

Just let it flow! You have given me the peace of mind to consider retiring and just letting you run the blog! Seriously, thank you for sharing such personal and powerful things.

January 12, 2009 at 12:03 PM
homesicksooner said...

My comments about "all things are in a state of flux" are metaphysical in nature and are therefore not about matter only.

The statement self-defeats anyway.

January 12, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Janet Greene said...

Hi there homesicksooner - I hope you don't feel ganged up on here! I don't mean to do that, and I really appreciate your comments and discussions on this blog. I give you a lot of credit for having the courage to discuss these things.

That said, can I ask what you mean by the "comment is self-defeating anyway"? I want to make sure I understand you before I reply! (no straw man attacks!)

Thanks!

January 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM
homesicksooner said...

To say that all things are in a state of flux or changing self defeats because the statement in made in an absolute way.

January 24, 2009 at 9:28 AM
homesicksooner said...

BTW Janet . . . thanks for the comments. I don't feel too ganged up on here . . . maybe sometimes, but I enjoy the discussion as well. You're thoughts are appreciated too!

January 25, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)