Evolution has not prepared us for this

[coberst]

Evolution has not prepared us for this

Humans are animals with self-consciousness. This self-consciousness may show it self to some small degree in other animals but this capacity for self-consciousness makes our species different in kind from other animals and this difference makes all the difference in the world.

Natural evolution produced the human species but there is more than a degree of difference between humans and other animals; there is a difference in kind between us and our animal cousins.

All other animals are creatures of naïve action determined strictly by emotions, i.e. instinct that is obeyed by non reflective programmed action. Humans however are aided or hindered, depending upon the situation, by self knowledge.

Otto Rank informs us that for man “knowledge about himself interferes with naïve action, restrains him and torments without affording him the satisfaction and liberation which the deed grants. He cannot accomplish through action any more because he thinks, because he knows too much. Now man longs for naïve unconsciousness as a source of happiness.”

Evolution by natural selection depends upon naïve preprogrammed action; without this form of unmitigated action natural selection can no longer be a significant factor in human development. Through “too much self-knowledge” we are restricted in our actions. However, through this capacity for abstract thinking, we have a creative side.

Knowing can be a substitute for living; itself a form of experiencing. Human will, resulting from self-knowledge, is the cause of an equal and negative deficit. The active hero resulting from self-knowledge can come to grief because s/he lacks the knowledge of the results of action. The passive individual cannot act because of self-knowledge restricting the will thus developing a feeling of guilt.

“The artist solves it for himself and others since he transposes the will affirmation creatively into knowledge, that is, expresses his will spiritually and changes the unavoidable guilt into ethical ideal formation, which spurs him on and qualifies him for ever higher performance in terms of self-development.”

Quotes from Truth and Reality by Otto Rank

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste coberst,

thank you for the post.

what do you make of Mr. Ranks' essay?

i think that he's missed a few recent developments, perhaps. (just googled and found out that he ceased to arise in 1939.)

Evolution has not prepared us for this

Humans are animals with self-consciousness. This self-consciousness may show it self to some small degree in other animals but this capacity for self-consciousness makes our species different in kind from other animals and this difference makes all the difference in the world.

does he mean "self awareness" or does he mean that humans extrapolate their ego as an independently existing entity or more generally that some people are "self consciousness" in the sense of being aware of their body?

Natural evolution produced the human species but there is more than a degree of difference between humans and other animals; there is a difference in kind between us and our animal cousins.

i've seen this "kind" term used before, mostly by creationISM adherents as an undefined sort of catchall term to mean something like species or genus or phylum but not actually any of those terms. i've actually not heard a good description for what this category is supposed to represent

All other animals are creatures of naïve action determined strictly by emotions, i.e. instinct that is obeyed by non reflective programmed action. Humans however are aided or hindered, depending upon the situation, by self knowledge.

tool making crows would seem to demonstrate otherwise:
Crows Have Human-Like Intelligence, Author Says

though i'm sure that crows have been making tools for awhile such evidence was not accumulated until quite recently and its no reflection upon Mr. Rank.

metta,

~v

 

[shawn]

Natural evolution produced the human species

This is an unproven idea and so all arguments and other ideas which build upon it are specious at best.

Evolution has not prepared us for this

Evolution has had little to do with the matter at hand.

 

[Dogbrain]

Isn't it amazing that self-styled men of action claim that only men of action truly live, while simultaneously self-styled scholars claim that only scholars truly live, while simultaneously self-styled artists claim that only artists truly live.

And the wannabe men-of-action nod and approve.
And the wannabe scholars nod and approve.
And the wannabe artists nod and approve.

 

[coberst]

Metta

You ask me about Rank’s essay but you did not identify what essay you speak of. The reference Truth and Reality is a book.

Self-consciousness is a short hand way of addressing the concept of abstract thinking. Only the human animal has the capacity of abstract thinking. The ego/will is the result of this ability for abstract thought.

The rabbit is different in kind from a plant whereas the rabbit is different only in degree from other animals. We speak of a difference in degree when it is possible for a linear development to be traced from one to the other.

Some deny that such a thing as difference in kind exists. I agree with such thought if we examine the matter on a very deep level. We can say, based upon the Big Bang theory, that all entities are different only in degree. In common thought we recognize a difference in kind from a rock and a plant and in an animal and the plant.

 

[Dogbrain]

The rabbit is different in kind from a plant whereas the rabbit is different only in degree from other animals.

How so? Are you not imposing a superstition here? One aspect of molecular biology says that a plant is only different in degree from a rabbit, same genetic code. Another aspect of molecular biology says that a rabbit is different in kind from a primate--different transcription factors operate on entirely different signal sites.

 

[wil]

seems to me what evolution did not, could not prepare us for was the rapid increase in chemical and electrical and computing knowledge which is whisking civlization ahead faster than we reproduce much less the millenia it takes for a favored mutation to be identified and parlayed by natural selection...

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste coberst,

thank you for the post.

Metta

You ask me about Rank’s essay but you did not identify what essay you speak of. The reference Truth and Reality is a book.

my apologies. i was referring to the bits that you excerpted.

Self-consciousness is a short hand way of addressing the concept of abstract thinking. Only the human animal has the capacity of abstract thinking. The ego/will is the result of this ability for abstract thought.

wouldn't the idea of "abstract thinking" be a bit more accurate of a way of addressing the idea of "abstract thinking"? granted, the information you posted here is significantly out of date, depending on when this was published as much as 100 years and thus the language which is used is somewhat antiquated and, of course, couched in a Freudian lexicon.

however, the question of uniqueness of abstract thinking amongst humans becomes moot in the evidence of the crows that demonstrate that same ability, wouldn't you agree?

The rabbit is different in kind from a plant whereas the rabbit is different only in degree from other animals. We speak of a difference in degree when it is possible for a linear development to be traced from one to the other.

you could use the accepted terms for those things... species, genus and phylum even phenotype and the like. from this description of the term "kind" it would seem to be a term which can be obfuscated to such a degree that it could mean anything and therefore means nothing.

Some deny that such a thing as difference in kind exists. I agree with such thought if we examine the matter on a very deep level. We can say, based upon the Big Bang theory, that all entities are different only in degree. In common thought we recognize a difference in kind from a rock and a plant and in an animal and the plant.

well... i'm not sure how Rapid Inflationary Theory could be used to draw the conclusions you are drawing from it and, for my part at any rate, the evidence is certainly not in favor of it. this isn't the science forum, however, so we don't really have to go into that all that much

by and large, however, i'm interested in your own thoughts and ideas on the text you excerpted so i can dialog with you about them... it's difficult to have a conversation with a someone that is no longer arising in this world system.

metta,

~v

 

[coberst]

How so? Are you not imposing a superstition here? One aspect of molecular biology says that a plant is only different in degree from a rabbit, same genetic code. Another aspect of molecular biology says that a rabbit is different in kind from a primate--different transcription factors operate on entirely different signal sites.

Some deny that such a thing as difference in kind exists. I agree with such thought if we examine the matter on a very deep level. We can say, based upon the Big Bang theory, that all entities are different only in degree. In common thought we recognize a difference in kind from a rock and a plant and in an animal and the plant.

 

[coberst]

seems to me what evolution did not, could not prepare us for was the rapid increase in chemical and electrical and computing knowledge which is whisking civlization ahead faster than we reproduce much less the millenia it takes for a favored mutation to be identified and parlayed by natural selection...

That is my point. With the introducton of abstract reasoning technology dwarfs anything that natural selection can do.

 

[Dogbrain]

Some deny that such a thing as difference in kind exists. I agree with such thought if we examine the matter on a very deep level. We can say, based upon the Big Bang theory, that all entities are different only in degree. In common thought we recognize a difference in kind from a rock and a plant and in an animal and the plant.

And, in common thought, we recognize a difference in kind from a rabbit and a dog, from a rabbit and a cow, from a rabbit and a snake, from a rabbit and a human.

Or are you redefining "common thought' to merely suit your needs of the moment?

 

[coberst]

Or are you redefining "common thought' to merely suit your needs of the moment?

We must observe and study, and then we must make judgments based upon these observations and study and upon our Critical Thinking ability.

 

[wil]

That is my point. With the introducton of abstract reasoning technology dwarfs anything that natural selection can do.

First glance I'd say it has no way to keep up....second thought is maybe Hawkings, Einstien, Bucky, etc (the geniuses in any field) are exactly the mutations we are lookng for...and cloning and gene choice technology are actually part of 'natural' selection, and ID....yikes...what if there is no pandoras box?

 

[Dogbrain]

We must observe and study, and then we must make judgments based upon these observations and study and upon our Critical Thinking ability.

Well, that's very pompous and important-sounding, but it certainly doesn't actually say anything. What you call "qualitative" or "quantitative" differences to fall apart completely if examined with "Critical Thinking ability".

 

[Dogbrain]

What the hell is "natural"? What is "artificial"?

Why is human activity always presumed to not be "natural"?

 

[coberst]

What the hell is "natural"? What is "artificial"?

Why is human activity always presumed to not be "natural"?

Modality-=-of or relating to structure as opposed to substance.

Sophistication: Recognizing piece, part, and whole

In “Art and Visual Perception”, the author Rudolf Arnheim speaks of the master cook “whose cleaver remained sharp for nineteen years because when he carved an ox, he did not cut arbitrarily but respected the natural subdivision of the animal’s bones, muscles, and organs”.

The master cook was a sophisticated butcher. The sophisticated butcher recognizes the natural pattern of the animals he was required to dissect; under such a sophisticated individual the parts seemed almost to melt away, they almost dissected themselves. The student of life becomes sophisticated as s/he studies and learns the patterns of the parts and wholes comprising reality.

The sophisticated student of educational institutions, or the sophisticate autodidact, has learned many of the patterns of reality; perhaps we might properly call these patterns as being the domains of knowledge that can be both wholes and parts of reality. They are whole or part depending upon their relationship to that which surrounds them in the situation that is under study.

Learning how to distinguish between part and whole or fragment and part is the key to success in all of our endeavors.

Humans are meaning creating creatures; much of what is important to us are what is artificial, i.e. not the result of Mother Nature directly but through the human creator. I suspect that it is these artificial creations for which we live, die, and kill are the most difficult to comprehend even though the human created world is designed specifically to fit human needs.

“Seeing is the perception of action”

When we see a dark disk placed within a white square we do not see the disk and square separately, we see a whole object. We see objects immediately as having a certain size like smaller or larger than a bread box, and we see them in a location among other objects. “No object is perceived as unique or isolated.”

We see various qualities of an object as properties of a total visual field, and these properties are not static, “there is something restless about it”. “Visual experience is dynamic.”

The tensions we perceive in a visual field “are as inherent in any percept as size, shape, location, or color. Because they have magnitude and direction, these tensions can be described as psychological “forces”.

There are more things perceived within a visual field than those that strike the retina of the eye. Such things are called perceptual inductions. Occasionally these perceptual inductions result from previous experiences. “More typically, however, they are completions deriving spontaneously during perception from the given configuration of the pattern…For any special relations between objects there is a “correct” distance, established by the eye intuitively.”

The viewer perceives an “unpleasant” effect when the objects within the field seem to be ambiguous or to pull too strenuously on one another. “In ambiguous situations the visual pattern ceases to determine what is seen, and subjective factors in the observer…come into play.”

Just as living creatures cannot be adequately described only in terms of inches of distance and size, or angles of perception, so also these static measurements are insufficient for describing the meaning and expression of life forces.

Quotes from Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye by Rudolf Arnheim

 

[Dogbrain]

Modality-=-of or relating to structure as opposed to substance.

Sophistication: Recognizing piece, part, and whole

In “Art and Visual Perception”, the author Rudolf Arnheim speaks of the master cook “whose cleaver remained sharp for nineteen years because when he carved an ox, he did not cut arbitrarily but respected the natural subdivision of the animal’s bones, muscles, and organs”.

The master cook was a sophisticated butcher. The sophisticated butcher recognizes the natural pattern of the animals he was required to dissect; under such a sophisticated individual the parts seemed almost to melt away, they almost dissected themselves. The student of life becomes sophisticated as s/he studies and learns the patterns of the parts and wholes comprising reality.

The sophisticated student of educational institutions, or the sophisticate autodidact, has learned many of the patterns of reality; perhaps we might properly call these patterns as being the domains of knowledge that can be both wholes and parts of reality. They are whole or part depending upon their relationship to that which surrounds them in the situation that is under study.

Learning how to distinguish between part and whole or fragment and part is the key to success in all of our endeavors.

Humans are meaning creating creatures; much of what is important to us are what is artificial, i.e. not the result of Mother Nature directly but through the human creator. I suspect that it is these artificial creations for which we live, die, and kill are the most difficult to comprehend even though the human created world is designed specifically to fit human needs.

“Seeing is the perception of action”

When we see a dark disk placed within a white square we do not see the disk and square separately, we see a whole object. We see objects immediately as having a certain size like smaller or larger than a bread box, and we see them in a location among other objects. “No object is perceived as unique or isolated.”

We see various qualities of an object as properties of a total visual field, and these properties are not static, “there is something restless about it”. “Visual experience is dynamic.”

The tensions we perceive in a visual field “are as inherent in any percept as size, shape, location, or color. Because they have magnitude and direction, these tensions can be described as psychological “forces”.

There are more things perceived within a visual field than those that strike the retina of the eye. Such things are called perceptual inductions. Occasionally these perceptual inductions result from previous experiences. “More typically, however, they are completions deriving spontaneously during perception from the given configuration of the pattern…For any special relations between objects there is a “correct” distance, established by the eye intuitively.”

The viewer perceives an “unpleasant” effect when the objects within the field seem to be ambiguous or to pull too strenuously on one another. “In ambiguous situations the visual pattern ceases to determine what is seen, and subjective factors in the observer…come into play.”

Just as living creatures cannot be adequately described only in terms of inches of distance and size, or angles of perception, so also these static measurements are insufficient for describing the meaning and expression of life forces.

Quotes from Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye by Rudolf Arnheim

Cut the pretentious twaddle and answer the questions DIRECTLY AND IN YOUR OWN WORDS:

What is natural?
What is artificial?

Why presume that human activity is not natural?

You have refused to actually answer these fundamental questions. Instead, you retreat into double-talk, self-important blathering, and preposterously long quotations.

Are you unable to think for yourself? Are you unable to communicate succinctly? Baroque pronouncements are a smoke screen to cover incompetence.

 

[coberst]

Cut the pretentious twaddle and answer the questions DIRECTLY AND IN YOUR OWN WORDS:

What is natural?
What is artificial?

Why presume that human activity is not natural?

You have refused to actually answer these fundamental questions. Instead, you retreat into double-talk, self-important blathering, and preposterously long quotations.

Are you unable to think for yourself? Are you unable to communicate succinctly? Baroque pronouncements are a smoke screen to cover incompetence.

Concrete concepts are natural abstract concepts are not natural they are artificial.

 

[Dogbrain]

Concrete concepts are natural abstract concepts are not natural they are artificial.

All concepts are abstract, that is one fundamental way they are concepts and not objects.

You are still blathering.

 

[shawn]

Fun with genetics :