archetypal fool

I've recently started reading the Republic for the first time, and I came to a very personally significant point: When Socrates is debating with Thrasymachus about what is justice, they come to the point where they're taking sides in the modern notion of ethical egotism, with Socrates against the notion and Thrasymachus for. Thrasymachus' argument is that everyone should always act in such a way that they always benefit, regardless of the consequences. Socrates argues against this, stating that if every individual acted in such a way, then society would break down.

As a biology major, this conclusion struck a chord within me - this is the same conclusion animal behaviorists and ecologists come to; it makes perfect sense: If every individual within a species acted on its own accord, as selfish and individualistic as Thrasymachus suggests we should, that species would quickly go extinct, and thus, a fine balance between ethical and unethical behavior has evolved and is present within us - it is because of this ultimate result that it is reasonable to conclude that our notions of true and relevant ethics and morals are derived from nature, from our very own ancestors, and are not culturally relative (as Thrasymachus also claims) or pointless/stupid (as Glaucon states).

Theists adamantly claim that morals and ethics are provided to us through belief in diety, as well as adherence to a holy book of choice - I refute this claim and return that ethics and morals are not products of society, but rather, they are hard-wired into out nature, our being, and our collective conciseness.

But, then again, I could be wrong. What does the TFP community think about the subject?

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

Ustwo

Having read the Bible and the Koran (translated so I'm sure I missed the nuance of the profits thought ) I'm quite sure that we receive none of our morality from either.

Morality is in part our nature as a social animal, wolves, chimps, baboons, and lions all have their own morality which allows them to function together, no reason we should be different. Its then maintained by threat of force/punishment in their cases and in ours.

If there is a power outage in a major city, all the bibles in the world won't stop the parasites, but extra police will.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Nimetic

I'm no philosopher... but my take on it is that empathy is an inbuilt capability that humans have, to a lesser or greater degree - which assists us with cooperation and hence gives evolutionary advantage.

At the same time, the ability to fool others also provides individual advantage. So we have this as an evolutionary remnant also.

Next big thing is the "prisoners dilemma" (please place the apostrophe yourself).

This is a real interesting game, a set of situations where trust provides advantage. A variant of the game that allows repeated trades helps show why cooperation may be more marked in small communities - and less advantageous in large ones.... essentially, if you rip somebody off in a big city, you're less likely to encounter them again. Conversely in a small town, it pays to be a nice guy.

On a completely different track...

I was listening to some excellent lectures (while driving) on Kant. He had a powerful summation of how to determine whether something is moral or not. (I regret laughing at the arts students now).

In contrast, Nietzsche seems to view morals and religion as somewhat of a herd mentality, a weakness.

Dunno. For sure though... there's no need for a deity. But there probably is a need for some teaching.... my gut feeling is that kids have the capability to learn morals, but they don't come with morals inbuilt and fully functioning. (Parents help me out on that?).

asaris

Nietzsche has his own moral maxim -- "Act always in such a way as to act out of strength, rather than out of weakness." For a peculiar gloss he provides on that, check out the quote in my signature from one of his letters.

My own personal belief is that morality stems from our nature -- we are created so that our end is union with God. I think it's contingent what the exact commands are, and we don't understand our nature or God's nature well enough to know what commands are contingent and which are going to be the same in every possible world. We learn about morality primarily through God's words: Christ, the Bible, and the natural world.

Now, that depends on a number of assumptions that most of you probably don't share. But there you have it

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

skada

I am more inclined to say that we are hardwired with basic morals..

Just consider for a moment that you are completely invisible .. cannot be traced .. detected in any way in society .. how will u behave ??
will you do all the things which society thought immoral like killing .. robbing etc or you will also do something useful ?

However selfish we may be . we do indeed do something good for other for totaly sake of doing it w/o reasons.

The Holy Books being just the directiuon for the society the obviously are more society benifit oriented (rather that thinking about personnel favor) that what is my opinion. Any thoughts ?

__________________
No Signature

Willravel

Precisely. Morality is an extension of our hunter-gatherer days where the good of the pack was as important if not more so than the good of the individual so far as survival of the species. A lone human a little over 10,000 years ago stood a lesser chance of survival without a pack. With a pack, a human could defend against predators, hunt with a higher success rate, could find a mate, and could establish better shelter. This even lead to specific skill sets becoming possible, which lead to the shift to an agrarian society.

This is also why I believe that socialism is the natural state of humans, but Ustwo may not agree with that 100%.

filtherton

I think all morals stem from the ability, or lack thereof, to sympathize with other beings. Everything else is just a rationalization.

archetypal fool

Well, that's the same argument Glaucon makes. I believe that if you're keeping the appearance of being just or ethical for the sake of not being challenged or because you don't want the negative connotations of unjust/unethical people, then you aren't really being ethical for the right reasons. The whole concept of the Ring of Gyges argument isn't one of ethics, but of power being used to control others without their best interests in mind, and for your own advancement - therefor, a person who yields the Ring of Gyges and acts unethically is unethical to begin with.

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

Nimetic

With due respect....

I don't think that it's smart to get your personal morality from religion. There are lots of religions - and they have varying teachings.

Ustwo

Insects are often socialists and do it well.

Naked mole rats are the only mammals that are socialists to my knowledge.

They have evolved to be very much like ants, even living underground for their whole lives, fascinating if very ugly creatures.

Nothing in ape evolution is even remotely socialist.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

When we were in our hunter gatherer stage, between 20k and maybe 15k years ago, humans moved in and lived in packs, or family units. It's here where humans derive the concepts of egalitarianism (and maybe the beginning of stoicism). It was when we had these non-hierarchical, small, roving bands of humans that we were socialist. One could even argue that before this time when we moved in troops when we were still Cro-Magnons, we were also socialist.

The basic idea was that each member of a family unit contributed to the whole unit first. Preceding the Neolithic Revolution, there was not agriculture or proper infrastructure. As hunter-gatherers, humans could not often live on their own because conditions made that difficult. The consistency and safety of larger numbers all contributing to the whole created a better environment for humans to flourish. At this time, things like food, clothing, and tools were shared by a group, and the spoils of any kill were equally distributed even to those who were not involved in the hunt. That's socialism. If you need a more current example, many Native American tribes were deeply socialist (nonsecular polytheistic socialism), and were very successful. Had the Americas had more germs and steel, the Europeans may not have been able to get ahead in their technology, and we might all be speaking Mohican.

/Might be a threadjack, not 100% sure.

Ustwo

First, we really don't know what sort of societies they had, there are no records of any kind. Claiming they shared things equally is nothing but someones untestable hypothesis.

Even if your claims here were 100% true, it just proves that socialism is successful under stone age conditions where survival is razor thin. Promoting modern socialism based on neolithic culture is not convincing that it the model that would work for anything beyond a small family clan. In such circumstances I could see socialism working as the society is small enough to monitor the slackers.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Haven't you taken Anthropology classes? Historical information derived from archeology, paleontology, ethnography, and many more come together to paint a pretty clear picture of how hunter gatherer humans lived.

Not only that, but we can see similar behavior in more modern hunter-gatherer societies.

If you don't believe me, ask the foremost experts in the world:
Professor Richard Borshay Lee
Professor Irven DeVore
Read a few of their books on the subject, and you'll get a good picture.

As they both mention, and as is general knowledge so far as I know, the nomadic movement of hunter gatherers requires a small but equal distribution of resources (I think I might be paraphrasing from one of them, but I'm at work so I don't have access to my books, just don't want people thinking I'm plagiarizing). If a hunter gatherer has a shitload of stuff, he can't be mobile, will exhaust his environment of resources, and die. That's why capitalism couldn't exist back then. They had nowhere to put all their stuff (to simplify).
If my claims are 100% true, then the root of morality in humans today is socialist in nature. With stupidly massive populations like we see today, no single government works. Not capitalist, not socialist, not oligarchy. It's in certain combinations, including aspects of capitalism and socialism, under a constitutional republic, that I suspect that a large population (over 10m) could do well.

Baraka_Guru

I think it is important to distinguish the balance between our inherent behaviour as animals and our capacity for reason as humans. One such idea to note is that of the social contract, which was eloquently explored by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.

The idea is that as individuals, we agree to a set of rules that apply to each of us as individuals as a part of a whole. This whole is what we call society.

Within the contract, you surrender certain individual freedoms in exchange for protection and rights upheld by society. Breaking the social contract may result in your losing these protections and rights as a punishment.

This is a simplification, but I'm sure you get the idea. The point to note is that whether people are savages by nature doesn't matter so long as they've agreed to the social contract and abide by its conditions.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

albania

Have you read Hobbes(or Locke for that matter)... cause eloquent is not how I'd put it? Confusing, boring and utterly devoid of passion seem more appropriate; but I think your actual point was that they did a thorough job, with which I'd definitely agree.

filtherton

I think it's fallacious to separate our behavior as animals from our ability to reason. Our behavior as animals, like all animals, is the direct result of out abilities to reason. And though it certainly can make for interesting musings, i don't think it's reasonable to talk about humans as they exist outside of society, because humans haven't really ever existed outside of society. The species is the community, and whether you choose to go with the flow or not, or even drop out all together, you're still part of it so far as it provides context for your existence.

There is no primordial man, at least as far as solitary prototypes with inherent morality go; humans have always lived with each other. The only significant changes to the human experience have been external. Even if there was some singular original solitary human, no one can reasonably claim that he bears any kind of significant representation of humanity in general.

Plan9

A crusty old bastard once said: Two ways to learn things in life, gentlemen: Endless repetition or blunt force trauma.

Let's suggest that this applies to ethics as well.

Perhaps we are where we are today because we usually remember where we came from... and that this is generally a positive thing. Evolution for a reason.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

skada

that is quite a remark
well, i think our socialist system is far more sophasticated than say insects... their system has NOT evolved where as ours has ! I dont think ants were behaving say 2000 years back differently than now.. but we do ..

While evolution of societies has only led to manupulation of environment for our cause which i dont think has been even nearly achieved by other species . What do you say ?

__________________
No Signature

Nimetic

It seems that most people agree that there is a boundary or border - between what might be called moral activity, and immoral activity.

However that boundary is invisible, and we all see it to be in slightly different locations.

Fred might say that it follows a particular line and that he knows this because he read it.

Dave might say that it follows another path, and that he knows this because he was told by his parents.

Sally might say that it follows a third path, slightly different - because this would be a sensible location to partition the land, if one was going to do so.

And others would consider all three crazy. There is no wall they say. Walk back and forth, look and see, what boundary, it's just a convention.

abaya

There is a fascinating article in today's NY Times on this very topic:

Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Plan9

"Right, wrong... I'm the guy with the gun!" - Bruce Campbell

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

filtherton

Ethics are derived from b-list movie characters?

RenaissanceII

Perhaps it is as simple as doing unto others as you would want them to do for you.

__________________
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
Anais Nin


I Wish You Well.

Plan9

Better fictional characters to run our society than real folks.

Fictional characters often have consistent morals.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

filtherton

In that case, i nominate Falcor.

sapiens

Very, very few evolutionary biologists in the world would argue that survival of the species has been a motive/function/factor in the evolution of human morality/sociality. There is very little/no evidence of biological mechanisms in any species that function to preserve the survival of the species (group selection). From an evolutionary standpoint, any genetic variation that functioned to "preserve the species" would be very quickly weeded out by individual/genic selection. Any organism that acted to "preserve the pack" before itself would be outcompeted by organisms that acted to preserve themselves and those that carry copies of their genes (their kin). A brief explanation can be found below or in any evolutionary biology text written after 1970 or so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

This does not mean that humans and other animals must not possess innate mechanisms designed for cooperation (certainly related to the morality question of the OP). Cooperation between humans and between members of other species whether in forms that appear socialist(insects, naked mole rats, etc.) or species that have more familiar social/reproductive interactions (humans, prarie dogs, bats, etc.) is better accounted for by individual/genic selection. The first papers on the topic are listed via the links below, but there has been an enormous amount of research in the area since then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

From an evolutionary perspective, this is false. Cooperation can be in the best interest of the individual either via a reciprocal altruism perspective or a kin selection perspective.

All of that said, my position is that much of our morality is a product of the evolutionary forces outlined above (a variation of the position of the OP and willravel).

Plan9

Yes, yes... a snake doesn't have morals because it doesn't act contrary to its own needs at any given time.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Willravel

Precedence begs to differ. Humans moved in packs when we were hunter gatherers and I'd say we're doing okay. Most intelligent mammals (everything from wolves to dolphins to chimps) move in and live in packs (or troops or schools(?)). They are successful. As I said above, the individuals are actually stronger when they work together for common goals. I'll tell you what, hunt down and kill a wooly mammoth all by yourself with a spear. Difficult? Now try it with 12 of your best friends, all with spears. A bit easier? And what about all of the myriad of jobs that require specific skill sets. When you're in a pack, individuals can develop, explore and improve on skills ranging from cooking to hunting to making clothing. If you have one member of the group who has the opportunity to develop sowing skills alone instead of having to hunt, cook, protect him or herself, pick up and move, gather fruits/veggies/nuts, etc., etc., they can get more efficient and even inventive with their work. This provides a stable environment for progress. Imagine if your job is to hunt. Just to hunt. You can concentrate on strategy and weapons, technique. While someone else makes your shoes and maintains your encampment, you develop better ways to hunt.

BTW, I think it's a combination of caring for self and pack that really makes us so badass. There is a careful balance that tends to favor the more intelligent mammals like humans.
It's not an either or situation between individual and group development. Within the group, the more successful members tend to pass on their genes more. Still, cooperation is a survival trait.

sapiens

Precedence begs to differ? Your thought experiment above is not an argument for "survival of the species". It is an argument for human cooperation. I don't disagree with that. Individual/genic selection can better account for the patterns of cooperation you describe than group selection.

It's not an "either or", but group selection is an incredibly weak force in biological evolution. Individual/genic selection is far more powerful. I don't disagree that cooperation with others is important, I just disagree (along with the field of evolutionary biology as a whole) with the origin you describe.

Plan9

I vote for Frankenstein's monster. He's every bit the gentlemen. In fact, he's several.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Willravel

It's both. Part of our survival as a species can be attributed to our ability to cooperate.
I don't think I'm describing group selection. What I'm describing really isn't about genetics at it's core, it's about societal rules. It's ultimately sociology. The fact that the more successful members of the group tent to reproduce more or better wasn't really something I was addressing. The fact was that the pack or group survived because it was stronger as a whole. This was the societal foundation upon which agrarian development was built.
I didn't say how important it was, just that it was a factor.

roachboy

this seems a classic chicken-egg question the interest of which comes mostly from claims made by ethicists, who tend to freak out when the possibility arises that ethical systems are relative. it's like they imagine that saying they are relative means that people will stop adhering to the rules. so they desperately want to see ethics as absolute: at bottom the issue is that they have so little in the way of belief in any human capacity to modify behaviours that the only way to sleep at night is to maintain that there are transcendent rules. folk in a variety of traditions from marxism to nietzschean tend to see ethics in entirely different terms, as conventions/ideology effects or as the central obstacles to human development foisted upon us by the history of an error, the consequences of which are embodied in the christian church.

so i dont know where ethics comes from and am not sure either how you'd figure it out or why the questions is all that interesting. all i am fairly sure of is that one acquires one's ethical predispositions via socialization and that they constitute one of a number of (implicit) rule sets that we use to orient ourselves in the social-historical world. but that says nothing about where ethics come from. good luck trying to figure it out. seems to me that the attempt will result in the exchange of models/hypotheses that are interesting mostly because they seem logical or pretty to the person who advances them.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

Speaking of movie quotes, when I read your post I was thinking of one very clearly.....

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. " - Inigo Montoya

When I speak of evolution, I'm not talking about some politician raising the minimum wage and adding more taxes to some system. I'm talking about deep time, the hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, and hundreds of millions of years that make all the living creatures what they are today and the relationships there in.

In those millions of years ants have developed a true socialist system as have some other insects like termites, bees, wasps, and most like other examples which don't come to mind right now.

These creatures have followed a path which allows them to survive and flourish, though interestingly I think I discovered why due to this thread and for that I'm grateful.

The reason ants and the like are socialist isn't because of the strength of a socialist system but the selfishness of the system. Evolution doesn't exist for species but for individual genes. In a 'socialist' ant system only the queen and drones breed (from other queens), all the genetic flow is through that queen. Really the system isn't socialist, its slavery, and the daughters work for the betterment of the queens genes and hers alone. What makes the system 'work' is that the daughters all share the same genes as the queen and drone, but they are denied the ability to mate, there genetic success is only in allowing their mother to breed.

I myself have made an offhand comment that socialism works for ants, in a dismissive way of course, but honestly I can say it doesn't. There is no 'common good' in ants, its truly a despotism, only one enforced not with guns and prisons but by their genes.

The one mammalian example I know of is the naked mole rat, but even there you have a 'queen' who does all the breeding.

The more I think on this subject the more I can say that 'socialism' evolves in nature not as an alternative to competitiveness, but as perhaps the ultimate form of selfishness in genetically enforced slavery. I'd like to think I'm the first to come to this conclusion but I doubt it, shame as it would make a nice paper.

Apes themselves, at any rate, are not socialist by any evolved nature. This is where I think socialism really misses the boat with humanity. Its nice to say how we should live as some collective unit, using our strengths together and covering each others weaknesses, but thats not what our NATURE tells us to do and when you set up a system like that nature wins.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Distribution of goods (food), no individual ownership... sounds like apes are kinda socialist.

archetypal fool

You've reached an important point - If you haven't already, I suggest you read The Selfish Gene (Dawkins) - he actually comes to the same example of bees/termites/etc., and does allude heavily to the queen-slave relationship. The entire "selfish gene" theory makes sense to me - and you've already come to a similar conclusion that the genes are the beneficiaries of evolution. I'll write more about that later when I'm done on this ethics paper I'm writing.

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

Baraka_Guru

To say the society of apes is socialist would be a oversimplification. As with humans, a pure socialist society isn't as stable as a mixed one. This is the case with societies such as those characteristic of chimpanzees, whose genome resembles ours by over 98%.

Within the society of chimps, you will find evidence of socialism, democracy, meritocracy, and despotism. Within the same society, you will see individual freedoms exercised in some aspects (foraging) and hierarchies strongly established in others (sexual reproduction). You will see community members working for the greater whole, as well as individuals with exclusive privileges pushing others to the fringes.

Like humans, chimpanzees have complex mentalities and therefore have complex societies.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Ustwo

Actually I've already read a number of Dawkins works and Matt Riddley as well, though I haven't' read the selfish gene. I suppose its obvious, something already known, but I was so focused on the kin selection idea I didn't see it for what it really is as it applies to social insects (and the infamous naked mole rats).

Really interestingly you can't even say that socialism works in nature, there is no specialized socialist society in nature. Only the more standard dominance and commerce based ones we seem to have evolved with. (and for the side lines, apes do have commerce in gifts of food as well as sex).

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Borgs

Some, in fact, might argue the reverse -- that they receive their morality from us. But as to where this leads us, I do not know.

Ustwo

You don't know primate ethology.

Food is given yes, but as currency, it buys sex and it buys allies to work in the power structures at hand.

There is no individual ownership (outside of females of course) because what exactly is an ape going to own? The dominant ones control the best food supply so you can say they 'own' that, and they control the matings, so you can say they own that to.

Lessor males support dominant ones in chimps so they may overcome other groups of males and that 'group' reaps the rewards.

Rival troops are chased out of territory or killed.

There is a spectacular case of learned cannibalism being taught mother to daughter.

Working together for the common good as it applies to your own direct wellbeing isn't socialism its capitalism. You scratch my back and pick the lice, and I'll do the same for you. There is no hypothetical 'greater good', no needs of the many, just the needs of each individual being met based on what they bring to the table.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

1. how exactly is the attempt to ground ethics in one or another version of "the genetic record" not an expression of the same impulse that would cause a religious person to try to ground them in a god?

2. these claims about "socialism" rely on what definition of the term exactly?
there seems to be no agreement here at all.
in particular, if you erase the simple fact that socialism is a political system, how are you still talking about socialism?
it seems to me that the features that folk isolate and argue are important are in fact all arbitrary.


3. when folk look at evolution or at "the genetic record" or when they indulge in factoid accumulation about this or that animal comunity, there seems to be no agreement about how one goes about determining relevance. so not only is there a problem that follows from the fact that there is no coherent definition of socialism, or even any argument for why attribute of animal behaviour x or y would say fuck all about it, there is also no agreement about
how one should think about either the behaviours that are isolated and not-really-described or even less about the evolutionary histories that are supposed to be condensed into these behaviours.

on this, i think sapien's post no. 26 should have given folk pause. but it didnt.

one could say the same thing about baraka guru's posts above: they raise a fundamental problem with this entire direction of pseudo-inquiry. they deserve a better response than "hobbes is boring".


that said, it seems pretty clear that is happening:

somehow a debate about the "source of ethics" has been diverted into another discussion, in which ustwo wants to "demonstrate" that socialism is somehow "unnatural"--even though all the problems outlined above obtain--and willravel wants to demonstrate the opposite.

i dont understand the basis of the discussion.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite