Nah, the west has been cursed by laypeople who take everything personally and hold congeniality as the highest possible virtue. Unthinking masses whose greatest aspiration in life is to be regarded as a person of worth by their contemporaries. Thus we have a culture which reduces everything to the lowest common denominator / reduces it to something no one has to aspire to and everyone already is.
No one knows any better than anyone else. Everything is "common sense". The differences between us are ignored while we simultaneously pretend as if everything and everyone was exactly the same.
It speaks more to our unwillingness to think critically amidst all the distractions of our lascivious lifestyles. Introjection - self-worth evaluations contingent on the regard of significant others pretty much determines our every action and the upper ceiling on what we can know and still be socially accepted.
Like, if I say; I know nothing, I'm stupid. People will like me because it means they have no fear of feeling stupid around me. In-fact they are likely to feel smart and empowered as long as I maintain that I'm an idiot. The second I start speaking with conviction and betray the fact that I have a little more than common knowledge people will begin disliking me.
I say this is "modern" but it really isn't, I mean, that is why Socrates was put to death. He challenged the self-affirming nonsense beliefs of his contemporaries, thereby causing an introjective threat to their self-concept, and they punished him by death.
Sadly, the reason why that is the case is because of the process I cited earlier from the Handbook of Self and Identity. But it doesn't seem like anyone was able to understand it to see the relationship between Self, Identity and being a self-aggrandizing narcissist.
I guess there is no point in getting into "hypoegoic" states and how much more adaptive they are proven to be, since that would just be "common sense" too.
Nah, people are just self-righteous and arrogant. If you are a parent you imagine that you know everything about parenting and if you can't take account of your child's behavior then you conclude "Don't have children if you expect certainty". If, like my co-worker, you got back-handed every time you spoke at the dinner table, then you arrogantly believe that children should not speak at the dinner table.
That's all, people are full of themselves and think they know everything by looking at the world through the narrow lens of their own personal experiences.
Miss Cellania, The problem is the things I've posted are not actually common sense. The things I've posted are by far the last thing on most parents' minds.
Sounds like you identify as a parent and simply want to believe that parents intuitively know everything. I guess you've never heard of Infanticide or Child Abuse?
Clearly what passes as "common sense" for one person is considered completely wrong by another person.
The information I posted addresses a level of the sub-conscious which most philosophers and psychologists never even think about.
@Theokid, ego in the Freudian sense approximates ego in the SDT sense, but ego in the SDT sense is more accurately our very sense of self. The fact that we are self-conscious means that we are ego-conscious. Self = Ego. Ego, Latin for Self. I tend to think of ego as a function of mind which is critical to being conscious, and which characterizes all conscious phenomena. I've been heavily influenced by Thomas Metzinger's functional analysis of self-consciousness.
So, yea, I'll go back into hiding now. Guess I used too big of words and talking about things that weren't "common sense" or if they were "common sense" they weren't worth talking about. I seriously despise this culture that can't bear to hear any criticism and constantly thinks it already has all of the answers. I've spent years studying subjects; learning a lot, only to have the majority of people say "Yea, that's just common sense man!" when they really have no clue what I'm talking about.
This segment describes how "contingencies of self-worth" (rudiments of introjection) are formed through parental and other approval and disapproval:
"We argue, along with others, that contingencies of self-worth develop over the course of time in response to many forms of socialization and social influence (Bandura, 1986, 1991), such as parent-child interactions (e.g., Bartholomew, 1990; Moretti 8c Higgins, 1990), cultural norms and values (e.g., Solomon, Greenberg, 8c Pyszczynski, 1991), and observational learning (Bandura, 1991). It is possible that contingencies of self-worth develop in those domains in which people have experienced acceptance or rejection from others (Leary 8c Baumeister, 2000). For example, a child w h o receives parental attention only when he or she has won some academic award or recognition m a y conclude that to be worthwhile, he or she must be smart. In addition, contingencies of self-worth such as selfreliance may develop based on experiences of being physically unsafe. For example, in a recent case, a 3-year-old child whose mother was a drug addict was responsible not only for his o w n physical well-being but for that of his two younger siblings as well (C. Bellamy, personal communication, October 30, 1995). As a result, this child might develop self-esteem that is contingent on his ability to be self-reliant."
Yea, I knew there was four, but I didn't bother looking it up. My interest is in Self Determination Theory now. The following is from the Handbook of Self and Identity by Mark R. Leary and describes the processes of Introjection and Identification, as well as Compartmentalization and Integration. These concepts are helpful for understanding how a child may develop. Ideally a child will develop to be Hypo-Egoic. Which is not described but resembles integrated-identification with what is real (integrated identification with delusions are maladaptive).
"Introjection is a form of internalization—a kind of partial internalization—in which a regulation has been taken in but not accepted as one's own. Initially external contingencies are n o w represented internally, such that the person applies intrapsychically what had initially been applied interpersonally by socializing agents. In so doing, the person experiences rewards and punishments, typically in the form of self-esteem-related feelings and appraisals, and it is these contingent self-evaluations and their affective consequences that regulate behavior. For example, with introjected regulation, a person engages in an activity or adopts a role in order to enhance, maintain, or avoid losing selfesteem. In other words, introjected regulation involves pressuring oneself with contingencies of self-regard resulting from having been externally controlled by contingent love and regard (Assor, Roth, &c Deci, 2001). A teen w h o attends religious services because not doing so would incur feelings of guilt and anxiety is regulated through introjection. Similarly, a young gymnast whose participation is based on feeUng generalized approval and the self-aggrandizement that accompanies it is similarly operating from introjected regulation (Frederick & Ryan, 1993).
Even greater internalization is represented when a person's activities are regulated by identifications. A person w h o identifies with a role or activity has consciously endorsed or assented to its personal value and importance. A teenager w h o identifies with her religion thus attends services with volition and initiative because she consciously evaluates that activity as important and meaningful to herself. Activities regulated through identification are therefore to a large degree autonomous, that is, they are accompanied by an experience of volition and freedom in acting. According to SDT, being regulated in this more voUtional way, relative to external and introjected motives, will result not only in a higher quality of engagement (e.g., greater persistence, effort, etc.) but also in more positive experiences such as enjoyment, sense of purpose, and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001). S D T further proposes, however, that identifications can be either relatively isolated or compartmentalized within the psyche or relatively integrated and unified with other identifications, values, and needs of the self. For instance, suppose in the workplace a m a n identifies with the role of "ruthless entrepreneur," and in his religious life he aspires to follow the "Golden Rule." Both might be values or roles that he adopted as meaningful and which he experienced as personally valued identities. However, because of their inherent inconsistency, he must keep them compartmentalized from one another—following the Golden Rule at work would certainly constrain his entrepreneurial possibilities, while awareness of his cutthroat activities in business might engender guilt and anxiety when he is in his religious/moral mode of identity. Thus S DT suggests that identifications can be more or less compartmentalized and that only those that are well integrated within the psyche represent the full endorsement of the self. Accordingly, integrated regulation represents the most autonomous form of intentional, extrinsically motivated behavior."
They are aware of it because they say it, but that is not the same as being aware. Everyone can say they are self-conscious but very few people know what exactly that entails.
Introjection is extremely common and is most prominent among the children of highly attentive parents. So if you take Diana Baumrind's classifications of parenting styles
1• Authoritative - rules by rational discourse 2• Authoritarian - rules with an iron fist and appeals to fear 3• Neglectful - Let's kids do whatever they want.
Children of (1) which is recognized by Baumrind as the most effective parenting style are actually the most prone to introjection. Whereas children of (3) are the least prone to introjection.
Wikipedia relates:
In Freudian terms, introjection is the aspect of the ego's system of relational mechanisms which handles checks and balances from a perspective external to what one normally considers 'oneself', infolding these inputs into the internal world of the self-definitions, where they can be weighed and balanced against one's various senses of externality. For example:
"One example often used is when a child envelops representational images of his absent parents into himself, simultaneously fusing them with his own personality."
"Individuals with weak ego boundaries are more prone to use introjection as a defense mechanism. According to Donald Woods Winnicott "projection and introjection mechanisms... let the other person be the manager sometimes, and to hand over omnipotence.[4]"
This goes way further than the popular trope that "kids just need to feel good about themselves". The social interactionist might argue kids need "to learn not to think about themselves too much".
Perhaps loving a woman is not the same as love in the unconditioned sense. Philosophers sometimes distinguish between Eros and Philos. Eros is your self-absorbed kind of love that directs itself possessively toward another human being or object. I may love bacon and put a lot of effort toward procuring bacon. Or I may love a celebrity and put effort toward impressing them and making them like me. But this is all Eros. Philos is unconditioned love directed toward no particular thing. The love of wisdom (philosophia) is a love of no particular factoid or saying, it is a love of the "wisdom" in it's most abstract and non-characteristic form. It assumes in some measure that the philosopher does not know what "wisdom" is, his love for it is meant to respect it in order that it reveals itself to him.
Philosopher's generally have a very big idea of what love is, but the women (or men) they tend to meet have very shallow and selfish concepts of love.
"The mother-child relationship is paradoxical and, in a sense, tragic. It requires the most intense love on the mother's side, yet this very love must help the child grow away from the mother, and to become fully independent." Erich Fromm
Love is all, it gives all, and it takes all. Soren Kierkegaard
No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them ? Otto Weininger, Sex and Character: An Investigation of Fundamental Principles
Sometimes these philosphers are using a terminology which is offensive to contemporary ears. Allow me to qualify Weininger's statement with another from him:
“There are transitional forms between the metals and non-metals; between chemical combinations and simple mixtures, between animals and plants, between phanerogams and cryptogams, and between mammals and birds [...]. The improbability may henceforth be taken for granted of finding in Nature a sharp cleavage between all that is masculine on the one side and all that is feminine on the other; or that any living being is so simple in this respect that it can be put wholly on one side, or wholly on the other, of the line.” ? Otto Weininger
For these philosophers; the feminine, woman principle or archetype in nature is quite incapable of love and is really only capable of psychological commodity exchange, exchanging praise and adoration - which it calls "love". And has no greater concept than this.
Thus philosophers who have thought a lot about love frequently realize that most people just don't and are basically operating on a self-absorbed basis. Fromm calls it an "egoism of two" when two such people get together.
Anyway, something to think about
A discourse on the true nature of love in the form of an excerpt from the philosophical work "Poison for the Heart" by Kevin Solway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiaR6i0mj_8
Those who prefer reading philosophy in text can find the book here:
http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/poison.html
IMHO. The views expressed herein are mine and do not reflect those of my employer or the organization through which the internet was accessed.
Whether or not you agree with this analysis; I think people are abusive to animals because it gives them a sense of control. The sense of control can be formulated more accurately as a sense of concretion granted to the self. If a person feels uncertain about their identity and its role in the social fabric this can create a tension which gets "ventilated" in the act of abusing the animal (small child, or other adult). It's definitely not rational because the act can only serve to damage one's self in the long run, but in the short term it feels good.
Now, thing is, we pretty much all do this in whatever capacity we can. For some IT people it involves blocking internet services or "hacking" another person's or a company's computer. This gives them that sense of concretion to the self that the animal abuser gets. Pretty much anyway a human being can "pull rank", "put their foot down" or assert the concreteness of their self, we do it.
So, it's not so much a problem of people abusing animals as it is a problem of people ventilating to compensate for an incomplete consciousness of reality and understanding of their own selves. Many do not even realize what the sub-conscious motives are for their actions. Fact is most people are suffering, even while they deny it, and that suffering gets ventilated through physical abuse, drugs and other forms of ego-based satisfaction. It's all about feeding the self affirmative feedback, granting it a definable place in existence.
This is sort of a novel idea but if you think about the self as being this tension between an ideal self (what I want to be) and the fact that the self is entirely arbitrary, the activity of the self can be given as; the act of granting concretion to the self in the pursuit of an ideal self. Since the self fundamentally has no concrete (definite) place in the world except as this tension.
I know what you are thinking "Liberal bullshit!" or maybe "Religious freak!" or "There is no excuse for abusing animals or people", but all of these are themselves of the same nature as the abuse of the animal. It is an abuse of other people through the medium of differentiated social identities and of the character of denigration. Why? To feel better about yourself, to give concretion to your self.
How does the human spirit endure in times of tragedy?
Remedial activities designed to re-affirm one's self-concept/world-view:
• Ignore/distort facts to make them more congruent with one's preferred story • Avoid situations that draw one's preferred story into question • Withdraw from situations that pose significant threat to one's preferred story
It boils down to that if you are raising a robot. But with kids you are talking about a self-conscious being which is quite a bit different. You can teach them moderation or indulgence but in either case they may be prone to introjection. If they are moderate consumers but are full of introjection then they will not be happy or healthy. Teach kids how to manage being a self-conscious being. Such that the child understands "Why" it is a good idea to moderate their intake. Because if they don't understand "Why" then their doing so is based in an introjective contingency and could fall away any time.
I would add that some human neurons are not in the brain either. In particular the lower motor neurons. The upper motor neurons originate in the sensory motor cortex of the brain. They course down the corticospinal tract - decussating at the medulla - and terminate in various parts of the spinal cord. If I remember correctly the arm UMNs terminate in the lower cervical spine (vertebrae C5-T1) of the spinal cord where they innervate Lower Motor Neurons (LMNs). It is these LMNs that actually articulate the limbs. So as in the octopus, our limb articulating neurons are not in our brains either. However the signal to articulate the limbs originates in the brain.
Intelligence is generally related to brain-body mass ratio. Bigger bodies require more neural mass to articulate them. An octopus has virtually no skeleton and it's limbs are muscular hydrostats - like the human tongue. The neural real estate needed to articulate a hydrostatic limb is quite a bit greater than that needed for a limb supported by bone. For example; the cortical homunculus depicts this fact in humans. The neural mass needed to support the tongue is close to the same amount needed to articulate the entire leg and foot.
Octopuses consist almost entirely of hydrostatic limbs and probably there are more sensory nerve fibres innervating the limbs as well. This means the octopus can have a disproportionate brain-body mass ratio compared to typical animals without being super intelligent in the sense of being able to write any Broadway musicals.
No one knows any better than anyone else. Everything is "common sense". The differences between us are ignored while we simultaneously pretend as if everything and everyone was exactly the same.
It speaks more to our unwillingness to think critically amidst all the distractions of our lascivious lifestyles. Introjection - self-worth evaluations contingent on the regard of significant others pretty much determines our every action and the upper ceiling on what we can know and still be socially accepted.
Like, if I say; I know nothing, I'm stupid. People will like me because it means they have no fear of feeling stupid around me. In-fact they are likely to feel smart and empowered as long as I maintain that I'm an idiot. The second I start speaking with conviction and betray the fact that I have a little more than common knowledge people will begin disliking me.
I say this is "modern" but it really isn't, I mean, that is why Socrates was put to death. He challenged the self-affirming nonsense beliefs of his contemporaries, thereby causing an introjective threat to their self-concept, and they punished him by death.
I guess there is no point in getting into "hypoegoic" states and how much more adaptive they are proven to be, since that would just be "common sense" too.
That's all, people are full of themselves and think they know everything by looking at the world through the narrow lens of their own personal experiences.
Sounds like you identify as a parent and simply want to believe that parents intuitively know everything. I guess you've never heard of Infanticide or Child Abuse?
Clearly what passes as "common sense" for one person is considered completely wrong by another person.
The information I posted addresses a level of the sub-conscious which most philosophers and psychologists never even think about.
@Theokid, ego in the Freudian sense approximates ego in the SDT sense, but ego in the SDT sense is more accurately our very sense of self. The fact that we are self-conscious means that we are ego-conscious. Self = Ego. Ego, Latin for Self. I tend to think of ego as a function of mind which is critical to being conscious, and which characterizes all conscious phenomena. I've been heavily influenced by Thomas Metzinger's functional analysis of self-consciousness.
So, yea, I'll go back into hiding now. Guess I used too big of words and talking about things that weren't "common sense" or if they were "common sense" they weren't worth talking about. I seriously despise this culture that can't bear to hear any criticism and constantly thinks it already has all of the answers. I've spent years studying subjects; learning a lot, only to have the majority of people say "Yea, that's just common sense man!" when they really have no clue what I'm talking about.
"We argue, along with others, that contingencies
of self-worth develop over the
course of time in response to many forms of
socialization and social influence (Bandura,
1986, 1991), such as parent-child interactions
(e.g., Bartholomew, 1990; Moretti 8c
Higgins, 1990), cultural norms and values
(e.g., Solomon, Greenberg, 8c Pyszczynski,
1991), and observational learning (Bandura,
1991). It is possible that contingencies
of self-worth develop in those domains in
which people have experienced acceptance
or rejection from others (Leary 8c Baumeister,
2000). For example, a child w h o receives
parental attention only when he or
she has won some academic award or
recognition m a y conclude that to be worthwhile,
he or she must be smart. In addition,
contingencies of self-worth such as selfreliance
may develop based on experiences
of being physically unsafe. For example, in
a recent case, a 3-year-old child whose
mother was a drug addict was responsible
not only for his o w n physical well-being but
for that of his two younger siblings as well
(C. Bellamy, personal communication, October
30, 1995). As a result, this child might
develop self-esteem that is contingent on his
ability to be self-reliant."
"Introjection is a
form of internalization—a kind of partial
internalization—in which a regulation has
been taken in but not accepted as one's
own. Initially external contingencies are
n o w represented internally, such that the
person applies intrapsychically what had
initially been applied interpersonally by socializing
agents. In so doing, the person experiences
rewards and punishments, typically
in the form of self-esteem-related feelings
and appraisals, and it is these contingent
self-evaluations and their affective consequences
that regulate behavior. For example,
with introjected regulation, a person engages
in an activity or adopts a role in order
to enhance, maintain, or avoid losing selfesteem.
In other words, introjected regulation
involves pressuring oneself with contingencies
of self-regard resulting from having
been externally controlled by contingent
love and regard (Assor, Roth, &c Deci,
2001). A teen w h o attends religious services
because not doing so would incur feelings of
guilt and anxiety is regulated through introjection.
Similarly, a young gymnast whose
participation is based on feeUng generalized
approval and the self-aggrandizement that
accompanies it is similarly operating from
introjected regulation (Frederick & Ryan,
1993).
Even greater internalization is represented
when a person's activities are regulated by
identifications. A person w h o identifies with
a role or activity has consciously endorsed
or assented to its personal value and importance.
A teenager w h o identifies with her religion
thus attends services with volition
and initiative because she consciously evaluates
that activity as important and meaningful to herself. Activities regulated through
identification are therefore to a large degree
autonomous, that is, they are accompanied
by an experience of volition and freedom in
acting. According to SDT, being regulated in
this more voUtional way, relative to external
and introjected motives, will result not only
in a higher quality of engagement (e.g.,
greater persistence, effort, etc.) but also in
more positive experiences such as enjoyment,
sense of purpose, and well-being
(Ryan & Deci, 2001).
S D T further proposes, however, that
identifications can be either relatively isolated
or compartmentalized within the psyche
or relatively integrated and unified with
other identifications, values, and needs of
the self. For instance, suppose in the workplace
a m a n identifies with the role of
"ruthless entrepreneur," and in his religious
life he aspires to follow the "Golden Rule."
Both might be values or roles that he adopted
as meaningful and which he experienced
as personally valued identities. However,
because of their inherent inconsistency, he
must keep them compartmentalized from
one another—following the Golden Rule at
work would certainly constrain his entrepreneurial
possibilities, while awareness of
his cutthroat activities in business might engender
guilt and anxiety when he is in his
religious/moral mode of identity. Thus S DT
suggests that identifications can be more or
less compartmentalized and that only those
that are well integrated within the psyche
represent the full endorsement of the self.
Accordingly, integrated regulation represents
the most autonomous form of intentional,
extrinsically motivated behavior."
Introjection is extremely common and is most prominent among the children of highly attentive parents. So if you take Diana Baumrind's classifications of parenting styles
1• Authoritative - rules by rational discourse
2• Authoritarian - rules with an iron fist and appeals to fear
3• Neglectful - Let's kids do whatever they want.
Children of (1) which is recognized by Baumrind as the most effective parenting style are actually the most prone to introjection. Whereas children of (3) are the least prone to introjection.
Wikipedia relates:
In Freudian terms, introjection is the aspect of the ego's system of relational mechanisms which handles checks and balances from a perspective external to what one normally considers 'oneself', infolding these inputs into the internal world of the self-definitions, where they can be weighed and balanced against one's various senses of externality. For example:
"One example often used is when a child envelops representational images of his absent parents into himself, simultaneously fusing them with his own personality."
"Individuals with weak ego boundaries are more prone to use introjection as a defense mechanism. According to Donald Woods Winnicott "projection and introjection mechanisms... let the other person be the manager sometimes, and to hand over omnipotence.[4]"
This goes way further than the popular trope that "kids just need to feel good about themselves". The social interactionist might argue kids need "to learn not to think about themselves too much".
Philosopher's generally have a very big idea of what love is, but the women (or men) they tend to meet have very shallow and selfish concepts of love.
"The mother-child relationship is paradoxical and, in a sense, tragic. It requires the most intense love on the mother's side, yet this very love must help the child grow away from the mother, and to become fully independent."
Erich Fromm
Love is all, it gives all, and it takes all.
Soren Kierkegaard
No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them
? Otto Weininger, Sex and Character: An Investigation of Fundamental Principles
Sometimes these philosphers are using a terminology which is offensive to contemporary ears. Allow me to qualify Weininger's statement with another from him:
“There are transitional forms between the metals and non-metals; between chemical combinations and simple mixtures, between animals and plants, between phanerogams and cryptogams, and between mammals and birds [...]. The improbability may henceforth be taken for granted of finding in Nature a sharp cleavage between all that is masculine on the one side and all that is feminine on the other; or that any living being is so simple in this respect that it can be put wholly on one side, or wholly on the other, of the line.”
? Otto Weininger
For these philosophers; the feminine, woman principle or archetype in nature is quite incapable of love and is really only capable of psychological commodity exchange, exchanging praise and adoration - which it calls "love". And has no greater concept than this.
Thus philosophers who have thought a lot about love frequently realize that most people just don't and are basically operating on a self-absorbed basis. Fromm calls it an "egoism of two" when two such people get together.
Anyway, something to think about
A discourse on the true nature of love in the form of an excerpt from the philosophical work "Poison for the Heart" by Kevin Solway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiaR6i0mj_8
Those who prefer reading philosophy in text can find the book here:
http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/poison.html
IMHO. The views expressed herein are mine and do not reflect those of my employer or the organization through which the internet was accessed.
2. Stop Me Before I Start Making Sense (black/medium)
3. Female Reproductive System Human Anatomy Model
Now, thing is, we pretty much all do this in whatever capacity we can. For some IT people it involves blocking internet services or "hacking" another person's or a company's computer. This gives them that sense of concretion to the self that the animal abuser gets. Pretty much anyway a human being can "pull rank", "put their foot down" or assert the concreteness of their self, we do it.
So, it's not so much a problem of people abusing animals as it is a problem of people ventilating to compensate for an incomplete consciousness of reality and understanding of their own selves. Many do not even realize what the sub-conscious motives are for their actions. Fact is most people are suffering, even while they deny it, and that suffering gets ventilated through physical abuse, drugs and other forms of ego-based satisfaction. It's all about feeding the self affirmative feedback, granting it a definable place in existence.
This is sort of a novel idea but if you think about the self as being this tension between an ideal self (what I want to be) and the fact that the self is entirely arbitrary, the activity of the self can be given as; the act of granting concretion to the self in the pursuit of an ideal self. Since the self fundamentally has no concrete (definite) place in the world except as this tension.
I know what you are thinking "Liberal bullshit!" or maybe "Religious freak!" or "There is no excuse for abusing animals or people", but all of these are themselves of the same nature as the abuse of the animal. It is an abuse of other people through the medium of differentiated social identities and of the character of denigration. Why? To feel better about yourself, to give concretion to your self.
How does the human spirit endure in times of tragedy?
Remedial activities designed to re-affirm one's self-concept/world-view:
• Ignore/distort facts to make them more congruent with one's preferred story
• Avoid situations that draw one's preferred story into question
• Withdraw from situations that pose significant threat to one's preferred story
etc..
• Beat up something defenseless
Octopuses consist almost entirely of hydrostatic limbs and probably there are more sensory nerve fibres innervating the limbs as well. This means the octopus can have a disproportionate brain-body mass ratio compared to typical animals without being super intelligent in the sense of being able to write any Broadway musicals.