On banal realities: traits shared by all humans

 

20jul2020

Community is immunity (to addiction).

Humans, at their core, aren't rational actors. They are 'necessary' actors.

Rationality here in used refers to decision-making based on objectively better choices given widespread/conventional understanding of the human condition, especially his future and his social environment. (P.s. the environmental may most reliably be subsumed into the future category.)

Rationality is secondary, and holds most sway for futuristic and social considerations (when the future and/or the social are being considered). 

Relevant to concepts such as: social engineering, psychology and the hierarchy of values/priorities/needs (Maslow), economics (especially the demand side), and therefore marketing. 

As has been argued, it's arrogant and even foolish to believe that the priorities and behaviour of a set of people can be changed (transformed) solely through civil discourse and intelligible, rational arguments. Humans are not this simplistic and are motivated by a more complex set of levers than this substrate suggests. 

Humans are moved to action not simply when they encounter rationally convincing arguments but when that argument constitutes a shift in philosophy (i.e. the actual subtext (program) which organizes values and priorities relevant to the optimal navigation of ones way in the world, the most powerful and enduring of such shifts taking into account major existential questions such as ,why am I here? (see parentheses for 'how did I get here?' a few lines hence) what happens after I die? (even without a belief in the after life: see honor in SKorea) how did I get here? (especially given my current observable state economically, socially, then physically)). These are extremely powerful and sensitive levers. 

Theories and philosophies that often provide these are political ones (the organization and distribution of power); economic ones (the organization and distribution of ultimately limited [finite] resources) -- which may subsume the former; religious ones (which most explicitly addresses the spiritual aspect; elevates eternity and centralizes it to the considerations about how to navigate life-- it is then, most accurately, centred on the organization and distribution of effort/action given the inevitability and ubiquity of death which is by no means distant [o sea, human life and existence] ) -- may subsume the previous two. 

The latter then is most persuasive, most powerful. And not surprisingly so since it most directly addresses the existential and weaves in a tool for the organization in terms of relative importance of even ingrained, 'evolved' priorities such as the preservation of ones own life, and water, food, shelter, and so on (Maslow's hierarchy of values).

Without the elevation of eternity, economic and political considerations in turn hold most sway. The spiritual is the first to be ignored (descuidado), then the soully (sanity -- psychological, emotional, intellectual) and lastly the physical, when it comes down to it. Ideological drives, most often the spiritual, may override the prescriptions of the physical. Hence, if not mutually affirming, the one (economic, political or religious) will seek to outshine the other as well as smother the other (hence the suppression of monotheistic religion in China and other communist states, for example).

[Evidently, culture is a derivative of a composition of the above. Cultural considerations, when not in opposition to the spiritual --secular and religious in turn-- describe for the relevant society/ethnicity the composition of values which proscribes the importance of political, economic and spiritual ideologies in light of the physical realities--both environmental and human.]

Humans then aren't naturally alturistic. That's a luxury afforded by (material) circumstance or, less consistently, ideology.

Humans are most naturally self-preserving and therefore self-interested, i.e. selfish.

Ideologies of a political, economic or religious nature can raise the base man to a higher plane and mode of operation in the world.

The core (cave) man however who subscribes to no ideology of either of these three strains is (poor, arguably) --is only (most reliably) moved to action by the necessities of his physical condition.

In sum, that which is necessary prevails in moving a man to action.

Think about how this works in a man who has it all, a man who has enough, a man who has little and a man who has nothing.

P.d. Cultural engineering is often natural/grassroots appearing but in actuality aligns most with the dominant ideology that achieves such dominance in the statesian/Westphalian distribution of ideologies. A hegemon and universality is generated not solely based on meritocracy but on resilience (fitness), 'flexibility', and power. Luck -- if defined as opportunity meeting preparation (deliberateness --some set concept of how to move forward).

The true nature of man. 

The state of man.

👇👇

You are who you are when no one is watching. - Stephen Fry.

You are finite.

N.B. 26oct22

It's important to note that whilst the substrate systems that influence our desires and discrimination among such, the different bodies we have at different ages (and age ranges) differ in their messaging as to what is important and the hierarchy of I,portable among them.

Similar to how context (specific deprivation for example) simplifies (and influences) the instantiation of our motives (not in a deterministic way but in a highly suggestive way) the different bodies we have (especially chemically and age-wise) highly affect and colour differentially our motivations. (SEE Peterson, J. B., 1999 Maps of Meaning, pg.65, vertical, ch 2)