Cynthetiq

I see so you want to fix only certain fixable kinds of war. So you are not stating that the premise it to remove ALL war, but those that can. Okay, in that frame, I'd agree that there's not point in working with the human condition.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I'm glad we're almost on the same page. Now take the idea of using real solutions to end war, and multiply that by however many wars there are. With enough effort, one can end a war. Doesn't it stand to reason that with more effort, two wars can be ended? With yet more, three? And so on? I'm not talking about taking away people's need to kill, as that's impossible. I'm not talking about forcing people to be happy with what they have. I'm just talking about the tenacious working to halt military engagements by addressing what is being considered as a need for those actions on as big a scale and as many fronts as possible.

powerclown

So we're talking politically. Fine. Thats something Im going to stay out of for the moment. I think its accurate to say that all political action carried out by people is subject to the laws governing the base behaviors of those people.

I think this is what the "intrinsically war-like" crowd is saying. Just like ants and lions and sharks, we too have war-like tendencies. All of us. There are varying degrees of aggression in different people obviously, but there is an underlying and possibly even unprecedented degree of violence potential in people. I agree with Freud that much of our propensity for violence comes from our intelligence and our sexuality, and that people sublimate their base instincts for the sake of civilization, ie., the safety of the herd. Without the sublimation, the human race would cease to exist, he says. The sex drive is one of those things that fucks up the possibility of a perfect world, or world peace or shangri-la. Wasn't sex outlawed in the movie "1984" so as to avoid subversive thought amongst the populace? Thats a specifically Freudian concept for example. Then there are issues surrounding the aggressive wellspring inherent in orgasms (the ultimate source of ego gratification), and castration as one of the most effective ways to remove much of the latent aggression in people and other animals. I would recommend Freud's Civilization & It's Discontents to anyone interested in the dynamic, or in just a plain cool book to read.

But one does oneself a disservice by denying reality. Inherent human aggression, ambition, motivation needs to be included in the equation of any sort of "quest for worldwide peace". There needs to be mechanisms built into the system to account/accomodate for this.

Cynthetiq

Not really because all the kumbayayas that get discussed don't apply to some of the people so thus someone gets marginalized.

You are talking about "solving" maybe one or two, there was something that I sent to roachboy a bit ago about conterfactuals, whererin a known counterfactual historian changed his mind based on simulations.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

here's another way of making the same kind of point: "human nature" is a kind of therapeutic category in that any psychotherapy involves, at one level or another, enabling people to function within a given order no matter the nature of that order.

in a way this makes sense because no matter what you think of the political system within which you operate, no matter how fundamentally you oppose it, unless you are in the middle of some revolution you have to function within it.

so notions like "human nature" and their origins in the notion of sin *naturalize* the existing social arrangement.
they collapse ALL forms of opposition into ONE act, which is then recoded as subjective and evaluated as WRONG following that sad, debilitating logic of christianity and its sin-fetish.
you see this all over the old testament: god backs the existing order NO MATTER how it is organized and you are wrong for thinking that there could possibly be any problems with it.
so the function of notions of "human nature" and their correlates in the idea of "sin" are the same: they are about getting you to submit to the existing order because it exists and for no other reason.
if you find that compelling, then you can have it.
personally, i find it to be a joke.

so where does this leave us?

well, first off if you want to think in political terms you have to relativize your own position--you operate from within a particular framework and that framework shapes who and how you are.
you do not stand outside of all history looking at it as if it were a tv show. general narratives concerning how "people are" only operate for you as they do because they fit into the ideological context that you repeat continually, even in the smallest perceptual action.
these narratives seem to appeal because they resonate with (or inform) ideological positions that function in your immediate context.
they have no legitimacy--or even interest--outside that context.

so if this business of ending war necessarily involves changing the way in which this socio=political arrangement works (which is the point i made earlier somewhere, that seems to have been ignored) then nothing at all is helped by throwing about ideological propositions like "human nature is x or y" simply because when you do that you impose the logic of exactly the political context that needs to be changed.

it is circular, in other words.

there are a couple of interesting posts that have come up today that i'd like to address, but i cant see them without vaporizing this one, so i'll get back to them a bit later.

=================
powerclown: "literary masturbation"?---what the fuck are you talking about? if you want to take on the arguments i am making, do it directly.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

There is a difference between violence and aggressiveness, and war.
Kumbayayas?
I understand counterfactuals, but because no one has made an effort of this magnitude, it can't be considered unreasonable.

roachboy

btw: freud was also engaged in a therapeutic practice and many of his main metabooks do the same thing that i have been talking about regarding "human nature"--civilization and its discontents and totem and taboo are exercises in the archaeology of myths that explain something of how middle-class austria/europe appeared to be to freud in the 1930s--they isolate certain behaviours and try to explain them by situating them in relation to western myth structures (c&d) or in terms of some (now outmoded) golden bough-style transcultural fantasy (t&t). it's not that these texts are not interesting--quite the contrary--but they arent exactly guides for either living or thinking about how one might live.

btw: a characteristic of classical freudian psychoanalysis as a treatment regime is the bracketing of politics up front. an analyst would not say to a patient that response x or y which is understood socially as being problematic originates in an accurate political interpretation of the cultural context within which the patient operates. the context is given, the problematic responses remain problematic and therapy is about helping the patient get back to being able to function within that context--again NO MATTER WHAT THAT CONTEXT IS, NO MATTER HOW IT IS ORGANIZED.

=============================

on counterfactuals: they are an interesting parlor game.
the devil is in the details of course--usually these details start with the assumptions about causation--a famous counterfactual exercise (cant remember who did it) involved trying to figure out what railroads meant by trying to figure out what the u.s. would look like had they never happened. the problem is not so much the erasing of railroads but in the figuring out of what "caused" them and what they in turn "caused" so the model can be something beyond simply erasing the rail lines from a map.

what's interesting about them is that they remind you that the present arrangement is neither inevitable or necessary.

but that's all they generally do.

but it's a bit difficult to work out how on the one hand you might find counterfactuals interesting and on the other hold to a notion of some immutable human nature. i dont get that.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

roachboy, you and I are commenting on "human nature" from different perspectives. You, from a political viewpoint. Me, from a biological/psychological viewpoint. I would say that one can definitely examine the human condition outside of the political realm. Take the Indianapolis 500. From your perspective, you would be commenting on the occurrences within the race itself, the rules, the team strategies, the weather conditions, etc. I would be commenting upon the cars themselves...the different pieces and functions that make up the cars, exhaust, intake manifold, tires, windshield, etc.

I can't understand this denial of the existence of a "human nature". It seems to me as obvious and as relevant as the functioning and pathology of the organs within ones body. Some people spend their lives studying just one organ, say, the heart. Would not the modes of functioning of ones internal organs constitute as objective an explanation of the human condition as ones personality?

Willravel

If you'd like me to attack human nature from a psychological or biological standpoint, it wouldn't be too difficult. Of course, that'd be for another thread. As it is for now, speaking in political, social, and economic terms as this thread intends, 'human nature' should probably be closed for business. Unless someone would like to explain how weapons production interference via labor unions has something to do with gluttony or lust.

sapiens

I was going to call bringing up Sigmund Freud as an argument for human nature a straw man, but he (Roachboy) didn't bring it up. (I read his post about Freud before yours). Freud? Talk about theories that don't predict anything. Yikes. Psychodynamic theory, especially as espoused by Freud, was and is unfalsifiable. Now, I'm of the opinion that human nature exists. However, we can't go attributing random things to human nature willy nilly and random things to socialization and stop there. It isn't useful.
Very few active researchers approaching human psychology and behavior from a biological perspective would use Freud as support for their cause. Also, I would argue that the biological/psychological viewpoint requires accounting for both the occurences within the race itself and the car.

Baraka_Guru

The idea of "human nature" (more specifically, "the human condition") was eviscerated by the post-modernists years ago. We can no longer refer to anything resembling a unified "condition" of our experience because, as the post-modernists aptly point out, we no longer have what can be called a "grand narrative." Our experiences as human beings are too diverse to apply universal ideals to us as humans.

One way to look at it is this: "War" (both semantically and culturally) has a multitude of meanings depending on the individual. For example, my view of the word varied greatly from a former co-worker of mine whose family had fled war-torn Somalia. An insensitive manager of the store I worked at had thought it was a good idea to post a "War Board" (and it was labeled as such) in the staff room as a "cute" way to establish and record our sales targets. I immediately took a pink highlighter and turned it into a "No War" board. The idea was subsequently scrapped.

Also consider that "greed" would likely have varying meanings to the following people:

• A fifty-something, male, Caucasian CEO of a large multi-national based in New York City, who's from an affluent family.
• A recently unemployed single Black mother of three, whose home was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
• An Aboriginal in Australia whose family has been fighting fruitlessly to have their native land returned to them by the government.
• A Buddhist monk from Tibet who has been subject to humiliation and physical punishment for eight years in a Chinese prison because of his religion.

There are no grand narratives... only small ones. "The human condition" should not be applicable to this discussion.

__________________
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

sapiens

Evidently, I didn't get the memo (and neither did most of biological psychology, bio-anothropology, evolutionary biologists, evolutionary psychologists, cognitive neuroscientists... the list goes on....) There's a great deal of productive research being done from a functional biological perspective.

Also, there's nothing in the questions presented in the OP that suggests that human nature is taboo to apply to a discussion of war.

Willravel

The term was replaced with more apt or specific terminology with better definitions long ago. I've never heard "human nature" used by anyone but laymen in discussions of anthropology, psychology, or biology.
When I made this an exercise of finding real world solutions, I believe I made outdated, vague philosophical terminology somewhat unwanted. Imagine there was a thread about ending the genocide in Darfur. Would you think it normal to say, "It's just human nature. You can't stop it."?

roachboy

huh.

ok so sapiens (and indirectly this addresses powerclown's no. 128 as well)

i have been doing a bunch of work with complex dynamic systems theory as a way to model being human--particularly with reference to cognition. i am still learning this material (there's a ton of it)---but i find it fascinating and conceptually useful---this interest explains alot about why it is that i find nothing terribly compelling about claims concerning "human nature" from a bio-system viewpoint. the idea of "human nature" seems to me entirely ideological in the old marxist sense of the term. what i have been running out is a critique of the idea of human nature predicated on this claim. it seems to work pretty well, as no-one really has a response to it on its own terms.

i guess i could try to explain some of the complex dynamical systems material, but i am not sure how relevant it would be...

powerclown: while i like the indy 500 analogy, it dont think it accurate to describe why or how the arguments cross or dont cross. but it's interesting nonetheless.

baraka, sir: does your post mean that i am somehow a "postmodernist"?

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

First of all, it isn't something as simple as a universal memo. I refer to a bulk of writings on critical theory developed out of the 20th century, beginning mainly in the '50s, hitting its peak in the '70s, and having been refined between the '80s and '90s. It was an international movement and included some interesting critiques of the rhetoric of science of the time, to be sure. The world cannot be defined, evaluated, and conducted on research alone. Scientific research and development on its own is not a slam dunk. It must be left open to be critique before its worth can be known. The last thing we need is another social Darwinist movement.

Taboo? No. An outmoded and therefore useless term? Yes. Go on using it if you want, but be forewarned that its on shaky ground that you do so, though I think it is possible that you say "human nature" when you mean something else entirely.

Actually, no. The post-modern era ended on September 11, 2001 at 8:46 a.m. EST. While your ideas are certainly based on post-modern thought, they appear to fit within the next era of critical theory, which is yet to be defined by any stable measure. I think it has something to do with a combination of quantum theory, degrees of abstraction, and something that might be called post-humanism.

Essentially, you are one who is brave enough to be treading these new waters.

__________________
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

sapiens

I work in an academic setting. I would never accept "human nature" as an explanation for anything, nor would anyone that I work with. I don't use the term in the sense of "Oh well, it's human nature..." I'm not particularly attached to the term itself, more the idea that we have innate (evolved) psychological mechanisms sensitive to particular types of environmental input that interact with that information in the environment, producing behavior (output).

That said, I would never accept "socialization" or the like as an explanation for anything either. I read tabula rasa type explanations of human psychology on the board occasionally. "People learn it from their parents" or "the media teaches people" or "society tells people" or "it's origin is political" are all as equally imprecise as "human nature" and equally useless.

I think that an understanding of the functional biological underpinnings of human psychology (certainly more than "It's just human nature") is useful in understanding any social problem. I think that theories of adaptive function (like evolutionary theory) have heuristic value. They have the potential to guide us to solutions to social problems like war.

Roachboy, I am familiar with dynamical systems theory, though perhaps not as familiar as you might be. I honestly don't have the energy to debate whether adaptationist perspectives (my perspective) or dynamical systems perspectives better account for human psychology (or whether there is an appropriate integration). It would require a lot of reading and re-reading on my part. Right now, if it's not going to result in a publication or at least an animated discussion over a few beers, I'm not interested.

That said, my primary point, the reason that I wasted all of this thread space, was that you can't just dismiss adaptationist (how I use "human nature") perspectives without consideration.

Elphaba

Is there any chance of Will's topic getting back on track?

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

roachboy

sapiens: it seemed germaine. i am not sure that i could debate about it. unless beer was involved.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

I certainly wouldn't mind if we could.

I think a part of any debate about war includes the causes of war. But rather than discuss that directly, I would rather imply my thoughts on that through other ideas.

I believe a large part of the process of stopping war includes a mass democratization. I feel that strong centralized power is what ultimately has the will and the means to start war. Whether it is the White House/Pentagon behind the most powerful military in the world or perhaps a despot who has 15,000 loyalists who effectively run a third-world country, it is this kind of power that has the authority to start war, in a direct sense. I would like to see a further democratization in both of these examples. Although it is good that in America one can vote to put another in power, there are limitations. A true democratization goes beyond the masses authorizing centralized power. True democratization goes beyond politics; it also affects economics and society. Think of the Internet: it is one of the greatest democratizations of society that we have ever seen. Sure it has its problems, but it would be hard to deny its impact in this respect.

Examples of mass-democratization in each area would include the following:

Politics:
Not only authorizing power, but regulating it. If a vast majority of a population is against a particular war, why does the authorized power maintain the war or, worse, intensify it?

Economics:
I gave a link in an earlier post: http://www.kiva.org/. This is the best example of the democratization of economics that I've seen. If more of this kind of thing would happen, corporations wouldn't have near the amount of power they do now. This is our best hope of avoiding a global corporatocracy.

Society:
As mentioned above, I believe our participation in the Internet is indicative of the greatest democratization in society. No one is left out on the World Wide Web; everyone has a voice. (Even criminals, if that is any indication.) Though I admit there are those who are trying to control the Internet, I would say is nearly impossible to dominate it from any centralized power sources. The only exceptions would be those nations who haven't democratized their politics and/or economics...

...and here we come to this: these are all connected, and they are often without borders. When power over politics, economics, and society is centralized, the mobilization to war is an easier task, but if it undergoes and maintains a movement toward mass-democratization, perhaps war would not even be an option. For example, if a source of power becomes too much and shows signs of aggression--perhaps leading towards warmongering--there would be a pockets of power outside of that source that would render it impotent through various means, whether it be by shutting off their economic sources or removing their political clout.

A great danger of mass-democratization, I admit, is such phenomenon as tyranny of the masses. But I think this can be avoided. I believe that there will always be a source of understanding that can be achieved by enough people, avoiding the worst of things altogether.

What do you guys think of this idea? Can you come up with any other examples of mass-democratization? It sort of popped into my head after thinking of this and other things over the past while. Am I being idealistic, or does this make sense? I can't help but think of this: People generally don't like war. Why do we go to war, then?

__________________
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

Elphaba

Excellent point, Baraka. We are seeing the effects of the internet in unlikely places such as Iran and China. (Granted, with some censorship). Information from multiple sources is becoming a global commodity and it's influence will be difficult to measure, but significant.

I would be one of the perplexed 20 percenters had I not been exposed to differing positions concerning Iraq via the internet, and chose instead only Fox soundbites for information.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007