So South Kora Goes To The Dogs...?
News0 min ago
Is Love The Default Mode Of Humanity?
32 Answers
I believe that compassion, altruism, co-operation, sharing and communication form an evolutionarily conserved cassette of default states of the human mind-set. Examples of such traits are also clearly demonstrated elsewhere in the animal kingdom.
I suggest that mutations led to abnormal genetic expression of the default state which were non-advantageous in early human societies and thus had no impact on human behaviour until the dawn of civilization.
After that with agriculture and other advances the mutated genotype, represented in its most extreme manifestation in the form of the stereotypical movie psychopath began to flourish.
Like all things in nature there is a spectrum like the spectrum of height, skin colour and mentation.
I believe that the psychopathic spectrum increased its influence on human individual and collective behaviour during our transformation from a hunter-gatherer, subsistence effort based way of life into the sophisticated global civilisation of the present day.
Swiss research published in Nature has given a strong indication that the original cassette is still the default mode. It seems that in all but the most extreme manifestations of psychopathy it is in puberty, almost certainly under the influence of testosterone, that the mutated form of the human ‘moral’ cassette begin to exert its influence on human behaviour.
Furthermore this concept explains why it has always seemed so important to indoctrinate children into an ideologically rigid mind-set as per Hitler Youth. The default setting of the cassette has no mechanism within it not to trust the influence of those around them. Pre-civilisation any alternative would have endangered the survival of the population.
This naïve trust of the young in their elders is now a risk factor due to the increasing prevalence and influence of the psychopathic spectrum.
The paradox of humanity arises from civilisation. The original default cassette and its mutation have been hi-jacked by religions. Failure of this initial position to give total authority, because it is not the default state of the human mind, soon led to the additional controlling concept of the afterlife and the heavens and hells.
What progress in science and rational, non- superstitious thought in general has amply demonstrated is that religious and political ideologies are highly suspect in terms of their being post-civilization and thus likely to be the product of the psychopathic spectrum.
To me it seems that religions are now exposed, at least to those who weren’t got at when they were children, as nothing more than afterlife protection rackets, a means by which impoverished and deliberately undereducated humans would do the bidding of their psychopathic masters.
In many ways afterlife based religions are the perfect con trick. By the time you get to realise that you have been conned you’re dead. You can’t warn anybody!
What hope have we of restoring the default mode?
I suggest that mutations led to abnormal genetic expression of the default state which were non-advantageous in early human societies and thus had no impact on human behaviour until the dawn of civilization.
After that with agriculture and other advances the mutated genotype, represented in its most extreme manifestation in the form of the stereotypical movie psychopath began to flourish.
Like all things in nature there is a spectrum like the spectrum of height, skin colour and mentation.
I believe that the psychopathic spectrum increased its influence on human individual and collective behaviour during our transformation from a hunter-gatherer, subsistence effort based way of life into the sophisticated global civilisation of the present day.
Swiss research published in Nature has given a strong indication that the original cassette is still the default mode. It seems that in all but the most extreme manifestations of psychopathy it is in puberty, almost certainly under the influence of testosterone, that the mutated form of the human ‘moral’ cassette begin to exert its influence on human behaviour.
Furthermore this concept explains why it has always seemed so important to indoctrinate children into an ideologically rigid mind-set as per Hitler Youth. The default setting of the cassette has no mechanism within it not to trust the influence of those around them. Pre-civilisation any alternative would have endangered the survival of the population.
This naïve trust of the young in their elders is now a risk factor due to the increasing prevalence and influence of the psychopathic spectrum.
The paradox of humanity arises from civilisation. The original default cassette and its mutation have been hi-jacked by religions. Failure of this initial position to give total authority, because it is not the default state of the human mind, soon led to the additional controlling concept of the afterlife and the heavens and hells.
What progress in science and rational, non- superstitious thought in general has amply demonstrated is that religious and political ideologies are highly suspect in terms of their being post-civilization and thus likely to be the product of the psychopathic spectrum.
To me it seems that religions are now exposed, at least to those who weren’t got at when they were children, as nothing more than afterlife protection rackets, a means by which impoverished and deliberately undereducated humans would do the bidding of their psychopathic masters.
In many ways afterlife based religions are the perfect con trick. By the time you get to realise that you have been conned you’re dead. You can’t warn anybody!
What hope have we of restoring the default mode?
Answers
Is Love The Default Mode Of Humanity? It might be of humans, but not of humanity in general, i.e. Universal love, everyone for everyone else. The default state is love of a small group; the family or tribe. Unfortunatel
12:09 Mon 23rd Nov 2015
@mibn2cweus (14:29 Sat)
//Comments Welcome//
Your sentences are sometimes so convoluted that I have to distil them three times to extract any meaning from them.
So, what I get from that is that, if someone is down in the dumps, nobody loves them - and I mean not just they 'feel' that to be the case but, factually, no-one is there, expressing anything of that sort to them) then it is because they are unworthy of love?
Because you seem to be saying that love only ever exists when it is reciprocal.
What if someone 'loved everybody' but nobody loved them back? Or were indifferent? Or actively hated them back?
//Comments Welcome//
Your sentences are sometimes so convoluted that I have to distil them three times to extract any meaning from them.
So, what I get from that is that, if someone is down in the dumps, nobody loves them - and I mean not just they 'feel' that to be the case but, factually, no-one is there, expressing anything of that sort to them) then it is because they are unworthy of love?
Because you seem to be saying that love only ever exists when it is reciprocal.
What if someone 'loved everybody' but nobody loved them back? Or were indifferent? Or actively hated them back?
I asked the original question. Was it me you were aiming your reply at? I asked a question concerning something I have researched and considered for some time. I actually believe that I was closer to the truth than far from it.
Because I am a scientist at heart and an animal doctor by profession maybe my inclusion of humans as members of the rest of the animal kingdom and not nearly as special and fantastic as others feel us to be put me out on a limb when I didn't put my question in the science section.
I follow the teachings of the carpenter's son because they are possibly the purest expression of our default true selves even though I do not believe in God or life after death.
I also asked my question while watching a terrorist atrocity in France on TV. That got me asking if all hope of a return to what I call the default state of humanity.
Are we so cognitively superior to all the other living things on Earth that our early extinction is now dead cert?
Because I am a scientist at heart and an animal doctor by profession maybe my inclusion of humans as members of the rest of the animal kingdom and not nearly as special and fantastic as others feel us to be put me out on a limb when I didn't put my question in the science section.
I follow the teachings of the carpenter's son because they are possibly the purest expression of our default true selves even though I do not believe in God or life after death.
I also asked my question while watching a terrorist atrocity in France on TV. That got me asking if all hope of a return to what I call the default state of humanity.
Are we so cognitively superior to all the other living things on Earth that our early extinction is now dead cert?
@Colmc54
//I asked the original question. Was it me you were aiming your reply at?//
My post of 00:15 starts with an @ so others can see I am replying to mibn2cweus' post, on the previous page. So, no, it wasn't aimed at you but you are welcome to respond to it.
Your 02:08 post isn't addressed at anyone in particular. Did you mean me?
//I asked the original question. Was it me you were aiming your reply at?//
My post of 00:15 starts with an @ so others can see I am replying to mibn2cweus' post, on the previous page. So, no, it wasn't aimed at you but you are welcome to respond to it.
Your 02:08 post isn't addressed at anyone in particular. Did you mean me?
If we didn't have a natural disposition to nurture our children and to co-operate with our kin in the search for food then physically weak animals like us wouldn't be able to survive in competition with lions. Default state no. 1.
Other tribes of humans share a territory with us. There's not enough for both of us. Hence war. Default state no. 2.
The need for the organisation of the communal effort creates the alphas. Default state no. 3.
From which dynasties, hierarchies, privilege and oppression.
A state called history.
Q
Other tribes of humans share a territory with us. There's not enough for both of us. Hence war. Default state no. 2.
The need for the organisation of the communal effort creates the alphas. Default state no. 3.
From which dynasties, hierarchies, privilege and oppression.
A state called history.
Q
Hypognosis
@mibn2cweus (14:29 Sat)
//Comments Welcome//
Your sentences are sometimes so convoluted that I have to distil them three times to extract any meaning from them.
So, what I get from that is that, if someone is down in the dumps, nobody loves them - and I mean not just they 'feel' that to be the case but, factually, no-one is there, expressing anything of that sort to them) then it is because they are unworthy of love?
Because you seem to be saying that love only ever exists when it is reciprocal.
What if someone 'loved everybody' but nobody loved them back? Or were indifferent? Or actively hated them back?
00:15 Sun 22nd Nov 2015
I don't see how your interpretation reflects in any way what I've said.
//Love is that which ultimately makes each of us worthy of a reciprocal love from those who share our appreciation of love's inherent value, a value obtained not by altruism but rather a value we have earned and deserve by virtue of a mutual respect for and honour of the value it is. //
That one's love might not be reciprocated in the way it should, in no way makes them any less worthy of the love they possess by virtue of their recognition of and respect for its inherent value. It is the one who fails to reciprocate love who is unworthy of love.
@mibn2cweus (14:29 Sat)
//Comments Welcome//
Your sentences are sometimes so convoluted that I have to distil them three times to extract any meaning from them.
So, what I get from that is that, if someone is down in the dumps, nobody loves them - and I mean not just they 'feel' that to be the case but, factually, no-one is there, expressing anything of that sort to them) then it is because they are unworthy of love?
Because you seem to be saying that love only ever exists when it is reciprocal.
What if someone 'loved everybody' but nobody loved them back? Or were indifferent? Or actively hated them back?
00:15 Sun 22nd Nov 2015
I don't see how your interpretation reflects in any way what I've said.
//Love is that which ultimately makes each of us worthy of a reciprocal love from those who share our appreciation of love's inherent value, a value obtained not by altruism but rather a value we have earned and deserve by virtue of a mutual respect for and honour of the value it is. //
That one's love might not be reciprocated in the way it should, in no way makes them any less worthy of the love they possess by virtue of their recognition of and respect for its inherent value. It is the one who fails to reciprocate love who is unworthy of love.
@mibs
I don't know why but I have real trouble decoding double/triple negatives when I'm sleep deprived. I'll be right as rain in 8 hours. Short positive-form expressions I can piece together, while tired.
So
A loves B ;
B loves A back.
C loves everybody but, since none of them feels this directed specifically at them, they feel no obligation to return it an D pairs with E and so on to infinity, leaving C to play Billy no mates.
I drew up this scenario to point out what I saw as a slight flaw in what your paragraph suggested because I thought it was suggesting that love only exists if and when it is reciprocated.
Infatuation is one-way love. Some might say it is not love at all.
Stalking is definitely not love.
I don't know why but I have real trouble decoding double/triple negatives when I'm sleep deprived. I'll be right as rain in 8 hours. Short positive-form expressions I can piece together, while tired.
So
A loves B ;
B loves A back.
C loves everybody but, since none of them feels this directed specifically at them, they feel no obligation to return it an D pairs with E and so on to infinity, leaving C to play Billy no mates.
I drew up this scenario to point out what I saw as a slight flaw in what your paragraph suggested because I thought it was suggesting that love only exists if and when it is reciprocated.
Infatuation is one-way love. Some might say it is not love at all.
Stalking is definitely not love.
@Hypognosis
//I drew up this scenario to point out what I saw as a slight flaw in what your paragraph suggested because I thought it was suggesting that love only exists if and when it is reciprocated.
Infatuation is one-way love. Some might say it is not love at all.
Stalking is definitely not love.//
Love is an emotional response to that which one perceives as a value and so relies on the perceiver's correct evaluation of what is of value for their survival and well being.
Love does not survive any attempt to force it upon those who are not both able and willing to receive it. Love need not be reciprocated but is wasted on those who do not share a mutual respect for and appreciation of its inherent value apart from which it becomes irrational to endeavor to pursue it further.
One must never equate need with deserving.
//I drew up this scenario to point out what I saw as a slight flaw in what your paragraph suggested because I thought it was suggesting that love only exists if and when it is reciprocated.
Infatuation is one-way love. Some might say it is not love at all.
Stalking is definitely not love.//
Love is an emotional response to that which one perceives as a value and so relies on the perceiver's correct evaluation of what is of value for their survival and well being.
Love does not survive any attempt to force it upon those who are not both able and willing to receive it. Love need not be reciprocated but is wasted on those who do not share a mutual respect for and appreciation of its inherent value apart from which it becomes irrational to endeavor to pursue it further.
One must never equate need with deserving.
@mibn2cweus
//Love need not be reciprocated but is wasted on those who do not share a mutual respect for and appreciation of..//
Yeah, don't I know it.
//One must never equate need with deserving//
Okay, I will try not to.
However, if they *need* it, it's probably because they're not receiving it. Starved of it, even. (1)
So why don't they deserve it?
Sidebar 1) Is it *really* a survival essential?
Sidebar 2) Good choice of Best answer.
//Love need not be reciprocated but is wasted on those who do not share a mutual respect for and appreciation of..//
Yeah, don't I know it.
//One must never equate need with deserving//
Okay, I will try not to.
However, if they *need* it, it's probably because they're not receiving it. Starved of it, even. (1)
So why don't they deserve it?
Sidebar 1) Is it *really* a survival essential?
Sidebar 2) Good choice of Best answer.
@Hypognosis
//So why don't they deserve it?//
I often ponder whether or not we even get all that we deserve . . . or ultimately precisely what we deserve even.
Sometimes what is needed is a rude awakening. Sometimes what is needed is not even available to be had. But what we need most often is time and the knowledge to anticipate future needs so that we have them when the need arises.
//So why don't they deserve it?//
I often ponder whether or not we even get all that we deserve . . . or ultimately precisely what we deserve even.
Sometimes what is needed is a rude awakening. Sometimes what is needed is not even available to be had. But what we need most often is time and the knowledge to anticipate future needs so that we have them when the need arises.
@mibs
//I often ponder whether or not we even get all that we deserve . . . or ultimately precisely what we deserve even. //
Quite so and I'd readily acknowledge that just because someone deserves something (enjoyable, I mean) this does not warp reality in such ways as to ensure that they get it.
Rule #1 : Life is unfair.
//Sometimes what is needed is a rude awakening. //
Sounds painful. Especially to anyone who is already miserable (the scenario I set out, above).
//Sometimes what is needed is not even available to be had. //
See "Rule #1", above.
//But what we need most often is time and the knowledge to anticipate future needs so that we have them when the need arises. //
Slightly cryptic but it is my experience that women are always "already in a relationship, thank you". There is no 'gap' in which to make ones intentions known and whatever gap there is was suspiciously short.
//I often ponder whether or not we even get all that we deserve . . . or ultimately precisely what we deserve even. //
Quite so and I'd readily acknowledge that just because someone deserves something (enjoyable, I mean) this does not warp reality in such ways as to ensure that they get it.
Rule #1 : Life is unfair.
//Sometimes what is needed is a rude awakening. //
Sounds painful. Especially to anyone who is already miserable (the scenario I set out, above).
//Sometimes what is needed is not even available to be had. //
See "Rule #1", above.
//But what we need most often is time and the knowledge to anticipate future needs so that we have them when the need arises. //
Slightly cryptic but it is my experience that women are always "already in a relationship, thank you". There is no 'gap' in which to make ones intentions known and whatever gap there is was suspiciously short.
Latest Posts
Stalking Victims To Get The Right To...
News5 mins ago
Trump - An Apparent Warning To Hamas
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.