From: Alienthe@hotmail.com   
      
   Kevin Calder wrote:   
      
   > [One last old post.]   
   >   
   >> From: Alienthe (Alienthe@hotmail.com)   
   >> Subject: Re: 2003 | stagnation continued   
   >> View: Complete Thread (14 articles)   
   >> Original Format   
   >> Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk   
   >> Date: 2003-04-06 14:13:56 PST   
   >> Kevin Calder wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> In message    
   >>   
   >> alienthe@hotmail.com writes   
   >   
   >   
   > Sorry about the big ol' googly mess.   
   >   
   > I hope i have quoted enough to enable mental reconstruction.   
      
      
   Yup, it is all coming back to me. Holiday is coming up soon   
   so my replies will take even more time than usual.   
      
   >  >>> Capitalism and communism are often described in terms of control   
   >  >>> of means of production. There is another way of seeing it too: the   
   >  >>> view on human nature. In communism there was the old "give all you   
   >  >>> can and take what you need", while capitalism assumes human   
   >  >>> nature leads to lies, bribery, cheating and more lies unless under   
   >  >>> control.   
   >   
   >  >> I hate the "human nature" argument.   
   >  >> And, yes,  I'm going to make a post out of this.   
   >   
   >  >> It always seems to get wheeled out (I'm not implying that your doing   
   >  >> the wheeling, btw) in the defence of otherwise indefensible isms   
   >  >> (sexism, racism, whateverism e.t.c.).   
   >   
   >> Ah yes, I have seen that. However I am not defending the indefensibles   
   >> but I had to look closely to make sure what I wrote could not be   
   >> construed as such.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> Can genetic predisposition, which surely operates on a very low level   
   >>> (bio-chemical?), really account for preferences in complex social   
   >>> behaviours?  Surely the effects of chemical predisposition (nature)   
   >>   
   >   
   >> To some extent they do. To take a banal example: if we didn't have   
   >> hands we might have had to shake feet...   
   >   
   >   
   >> More seriously, there is a number of survival instincts that in the   
   >> prehistoric era helped humans to survive, and it is not always clear   
   >> that these help us in a world of urban landscapes with people packed   
   >> rather close together. I believe fear of the unknown is one such   
   >> example.   
   >   
   >   
   > My point was more that I believe that nature type predisposition's don't   
   > go from being chemical to behavioural without mediation at the   
   > learned-cultural level which is what suggests that we ought to be   
   > shaking something.   
      
      
   I have pondered this word "behavioural" and it does look like   
   it comes in by way of culture though I have a nagging feeling I   
   am overlooking something here.   
      
   > In terms of the hand shaking example I suppose what I am saying is that   
   > we have some kind of crude predisposition toward being social creatures   
   > and it is what we learn about the cultural context we exist in that   
   > determines *how* we act on this predisposition.   
      
      
   That seems right: a greeting seems universal but the form it   
   takes varies greatly, even over time. There is definitely   
   something cultural about it.   
      
   > So, before I get all confused I'll relate this to the original argument:   
   >   
   > Some would argue that selfless communism will always fail because human   
   > nature is selfish.  However, because the precise form that behaviour   
   > takes is determined by culture (that which we learn) I would argue that   
   > this need not be so indefinitely.  I think that humans have learned to   
      
      
   There is clearly room for some change. There seems to be a   
   border for selfishness/generosity that in some cases is on   
   level with family (nuclear and extended) but can also extend   
   beyond the blood. This does seem to vary greatly with   
   cultures and makes for obvious cultural clashes. I do not   
   know how (or even if) this has changed much over time.   
      
   > be selfish, and aren't necessarily intrinsically so.  I therefore also   
   > believe that humans can learn to be more selfless and don't believe that   
   > we are innately and forever predisposed toward capitalism.   
      
      
   I have no idea if it can be learned. If it were possible   
   then it would seem likely also empathy is possible to learn.   
   My hunch is that there is a connection here.   
      
   >>> become behaviour after they have been evaluated in terms of all the   
   >>> received cultural junk (nurture) that we collate on, and from our   
   >>> environment.  If this weren't the case, and chemical predisposition   
   >>> really could dictate predisposition's in behaviour then we wouldn't   
   >>   
   >> be   
   >>   
   >>> able to adapt as fast as we have to changing environments.  Chemical   
   >>   
   >> Since definitions vary and variations easily cause confusion I would   
   >> first like to state my position clearly:   
   >   
   >>  - nature: what we are born with, not dependent on culture   
   >   
   > Yup.   
   >   
   >>  - culture: what is created by humans and transmitted down the ages   
   >>  - art: the creative part of culture, as opposed to blindly following   
   >>   prior art.   
   >   
   > So tradition isn't cultural?   
   >   
   > I'd say it was...   
      
      
   Tricky question. I guess you are right but again I have a feeling   
   I am overlooking something. Of course we could define it as such   
   but there remains the question if all things we concider tradition   
   could be effects of human nature in which case these are not   
   culture. I cannot think of an example just now.   
      
   >> Obviously the nature/culture border is not sharp; civilisation is   
   >> culture but based on the societal nature of humans.   
   >   
   >   
   >> Thus I believe behaviour can be nature as well as culture and that   
   >> ethical restraints on impulses is culture, as is the introspection   
   >> that makes us ponder these things.   
   >   
   >   
   > Yep, yep.  With ya.   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   >> Nevertheless (and as I proposed in an earlier thread we have)   
   >> cultural progress hasn't really brought us that far really,   
   >   
   > Depends on how you measure the imaginary distance I s'pose.   
      
      
   Surely in units of metre * sqrt(-1) using a ruler normal   
   to the axis of reality, ref. Dirk Gently.   
      
   >> and   
   >> where it appears to be, even technologically, it is surprisingly   
   >> often framed in older mindsets. To sound less pompous, let me   
   >> give an example: the Internet has frequently been described as   
   >> the "global village",   
   >   
   > So would it be fair to paraphrase what you are saying as being that the   
   > ways I which we describe things hasn't come very "far"?  I'd say that   
      
      
   Yes. Our reference framework does not advance anywhere as   
   fast as what it is being used to reference.   
      
   > regardless of how we describe it the mental mechanics of how I think   
   > about the internet are quite different to the way those that I use to   
   > think about the village I grew up in.  That said, I'm not sure how I   
   > could argue tha the way I think about the internet constitutes a   
   > progression from the way I think about the village.   
      
      
   That sounds like the difference between the reference and   
   what is referenced.   
      
   >>> take.  What I mean to say is that I think that 'human nature' as it   
   >>> relates to how suited we are to capitalism is probably more to do   
   >>   
   >> with   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)