UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> What if the hierachy was backwards?


2/4/11 6:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Beezulbubba
28 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 7669
 
What if, instead of being at the top of the pyramid we were the bottom dwellers? The way we use resources is almost virus like to our surroundings. We dabble and try to harness energies which we can barely control and afford us destructive powers beyond ours or any other creature's capability. We cannot live in peace with each other or our ecosystem. Maybe our weakness is we think too much.

Mother nature has ended other species before, but we may be the first to end her in a way that supports life as we know it. Look has societal ants are, and how in tune they are with the world around them. Would our MTV world be happy being workers, because that is the way it is, and needs to be? Or would they scream socialism or mope around hating their jobs or their lives? Or feeling the need to excel at them when it all ends the same no matter how you play the game?


Religious people say God is all knowing of your thoughts, all seeing of your actions. Maybe God is just an Amoeba, starting from one, self-replicating, connected by a uni-mind, in all places all the time. He/She/It/They have no need of lust, rape, guile, jealousy, and all the counterparts and all the other "human" traits. They just are, total, all from one, everywhere. Maybe that is the ultimate life form. Or perhaps,something similar.

Much like civilizations brought down because of the sheer numbers of the nameless masses that can overload a system, we are the dregs, the destroyers, the parasites. And we are conceited enough to think we are the thinkers, the builders. Maybe the goal is not to think, not to build, just to be, with as little needs as possible. We did not evolve from them, but they evolved in spite of us.


Thoughts?
2/4/11 6:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Beezulbubba
28 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 7670
Ah, forgot an R. Can the title be edited?
2/10/11 12:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 9337
Someone's been watching Akira.

And no, the title can't be edited.
2/10/11 11:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Beezulbubba
28 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 7687
Never watched Akira. It's japanime, isn't it? Not a big fan that stuff. All the cartoons remind me of ink blots. Just something I thought about circa 5th and 6th grade in the mid eighties, and for some reason it popped back into my head so I typed it here.
2/18/11 2:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 9345
Akira is anime, yes. The movie has, at least partially, themes regarding humans as virus-like (they directly refer to people as amoebas, consuming without regard), and question what happens at future stages of evolution, and if people could evolve to become god-like, and if we can do that responsibly. Essentially, it fictionalizes most of your concepts.

All that said, your original post insn't exactly analytic philosophy... more in the continental style. That's not a bad thing, but there seem to be certain presuppositions that people would need to agree with before being able to discuss the finer points. E.G. we would have to have the same sense of what you mean in analogizing humans and ants. On a literal standpoint i don't believe that we are all sterile female insects communicating heavily by a chemical sense similar to olfactory. I suppose it could be said we are born into certain roles, but in socialogy, status movements are far from unheard of, unlike in an ant colony. etc. etc. etc.

In any event, your points, while valid, are broad and sweeping. I'd recommend you try to focus on the finer details of what you're trying to say.
2/20/11 4:28 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Beezulbubba
28 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 7724
That's exactly what I am trying to say. The thinking that it is "broad and sweeping" is anathema to what I am trying to relate. The fact that we have to debate about it exemplifies the point.


The fact that we have status movements make us "less" then the ants, which have refined and developed their lives to something akin to a finely tuned machine which is only influenced by the world (nature) around it. Otherwise they just live.

The movie "Instinct" comes to mind. Hopkin's character was learned and modern, but only after living with the gorillas did he understand the bliss in their simplicity. Even while sitting exposed to the rain and other elements.

Now let's say the most simplistic life was an amoeba, my basic example. No need for rape or jealousy, it just becomes two from one. So basically it is the same life form, just divided. Now what if it shared the same mind? So while having different outside stimuli, it was all assimilated to the same thought process. A uni-mind, if you will. So even if the lone life form multiplied geometrically, and after eons covered the entire globe, all descendants of the original were the actual original, and what all experienced was what all experienced. And afterward, all life now had evolved from that original one celled creature. So while a human, or even a lion, would depend on a number of actions that would cause pain or suffering for it's own fulfillment, the original example, in this case an amoeba, would still be everywhere, and everything.

This theory does grant the original life cell a form of telepathy (the uni-mind), but even twins separated at birth have astounding similarities over time and distance, and we have all felt a mild form of intuition before, some more then others. Some times intuition has even been the driving force behind some of our greatest advancements.

Spiritual (monotheistic)people say that God is everywhere and sees all. They also say that we were created in his image or he is humanoid, like us. What better see all, know all, then one mind covering everything at all times, seeing, experiencing, being?

So you may ask, why would an already close to perfect life form devolve into the environment destroying, grief and pain causing creature that is human? Evolution causes mutation, which creates the myriad life we have today. It is caused by the environment around us. Also, the greatest number of mutations, by far, are bad, destructive. But they still live on. So if that one form split into two and the second had to evolve due to outside stimuli such as food, weather, etc. And that is where it began to branch off.


However, because of sharing the single mind (the uni-mind) everyone experienced what all the others experienced. So while some may have fallen under molten lava and others may have been buried under ice in the south pole, everyone knew what the rest had given to the thought pool. And maybe in a way, we, their defective mutant ancestors even contribute to the uni-mind.

So is there any more perfect philosophy then knowing and experiencing it all, every stimulation to be had? While not needing any off it?


Maybe, in the end, social status movements are the result of bad choices or environment of our genetic ancestors, our "creators"? Maybe being able to ask why and answer why not is the bottom rung, while at the top, they just know the answer, but don't even care to ask the question.


Also, the virus theory has been touched upon in other films like The Matrix, and Slither.


Thanks for the answer. I am drunk right now, so please, excuse my ramblings and any misspellings, bad grammar or punctuation.

And I never took philosophy, so where could I find more info about the analytic and continental, and their differences, you spoke of earlier?

Thank you.

B


Oh, and words such as amoeba and uni-mind are just for example, not the be all, end all fo my explanation.
2/21/11 10:27 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02/21/11 10:27 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 9346
If you would like to know some of the differences between continental and analytic philosophy, take a look at the corresponding wikipedia entries that may shed some light on them. Analytic philosophy generally emphasizes formal logic, and appeal (or concert with) natural sciences, which is rejected by continental philosophy in general. In many instances in your last post you are working with continental ideas while using scientific analogies, which may be a part of my difficulty in discerning your overall point.

If you're interested in this stuff, i suggest you take a philosophy class or two, and read up more about biology and psychology to supplement.

When i say your points are too broad and sweeping, what i mean to say is that they are not fully developed and too obtuse to write in a 1,000 page book let alone a few posts on a forum. Many of your points are also burdened by factual inaccuracies and rhetoric. Keep in mind that rhetorical arguments only work if your audience already agrees with your point. If they fail you will have to rely on fact and logic. If those fail, you have both a poor and invalid argument (not saying you do, just a little general advice).

Let me give you some examples.

Rhetorical: You are taking a rhetorical position with your argument that "knowing and experiencing everything" is better than what we have now, and that the simplicity of being an amoeba is also superior because of their lack of negative or morally wrong emotions and actions ("rape and jealousy"). However, if i simply don't agree that having no emotions, and no choice to do something moral at all (including morally right) is better, than your position does not succeed. In fact, rhetorical arguments, while galvanizing support from people who agree with you, will actually do the opposite with those who disagree.

Factual: You are citing biological information throughout your argument which, in some cases, simply isn't true. Factually incorrect information is usually crippling to an argument.

Let me give you an example of what i mean. You said: "Evolution causes mutation, which creates the myriad life we have today. It is caused by the environment around us." The opposite is true in biology. Mutation drives (most of) evolution, not the other way around. Also, evolution is not caused by the environment (except in rare cases where a natural disaster eliminates a chunk of genetic material from a population), but rather when a mutation occurs, numerous factors affect the chance for successful reproduction of an individual in a species.

Another example: You allude to asexual reproduction as being superior (for its result on emotions and "uni-mind"), but there are many reasons why this form of reproduction is a disadvantage, not the least of which is genetic uniformity being an extreme risk against disease, environmental change, and so on.

Also: "the greatest number of mutations, by far, are bad, destructive." Incorrect. The greatest number of mutations are benign.

One more: "ants, which have refined and developed their lives to something akin to a finely tuned machine which is only influenced by the world (nature) around it." Ants are influenced tremendously by each other. Also, i think you'll be hard pressed to find a person in a western society who believes that a rigid caste system is superior in any way to a society in which social movement is possible, and social strata are less rigid. It may work for ants, but that would not be an argument for it being superior for everyone.

Logical: Your concepts of a "uni-mind" (and i can't tell if you mean a collective form of consciousness, or an actual singular mind with multiple organisms that glean from it, you seem to swap back and forth) is one that is going to be difficult to back logically. Not to say it's impossible, but your position doesn't appear to be definitive to begin with. I could simply say: 'It isn't possible for multiple organisms to have the same mind." Or that your concept of "sameness" is suspect if you mean a collective mind. If you mean something more ethereal, such as with hinduism, then i would say that a mind is not an abstract object distinct from the physical (I.E. i would reject dualism or idealism). In any event, as it is presented, your conclusion (which i'm not totally clear on), would not be supported by your major premise. Additionally, your "uni-mind" idea is a big 'what-if.' You say so yourself: "what if it shared the same mind." Again, i question your concept of sameness (what does it mean that two things have a mind that is the 'same'?), but irrespective of that, I could have a very simple counter argument that would shut yours down: "What if they don't share the same mind." Or "What if they can't?" Or "Maybe the concept of evolution supports the idea that all organisms are ideally suited to their habitats." Then none are better than others, and your point is moot (and, in fact, this is a generalization of how evolution really is characterized in biology).

What's most important, is your hunger for knowledge, and your ability to think critically. Keep working at it!
2/23/11 12:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Beezulbubba
28 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 7739
Lol, no, not at all. I am actually self-employed so the whole upward moving status thing is sorta essential to me. Like it's said it's just something I thought about back in elementary school, and it popped back into my head. Thought I would post it here for shits and giggles. Just realized I had never posted in this forum (that I recall), and was just making conversation.


And I didn't mean to paint us as bad, just that we change nature to us, instead of living within it. But thjanks or the responses.
2/24/11 9:40 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Voluntaryist
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/18/11
Posts: 7
Bawls, 'a negative view of human life'? I just saw you post in another thread about a certain sect of humans deemed 'illegal' by those who think they have legitimate power and call themselves government. Seemed like a pretty negative view of human life...

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.