10-15-2022, 04:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2022, 05:12 PM by Eric the Green.)
Jeremy Griffith is a scientist who offers another explanation for our misbehavior than what conservative social darwinist neoliberal conservatives offer, and instead points toward our conscious behavior understanding and moral nature. Like George Monbiot, he says we have an original empathetic side as verified by science today. We are led astray by things we have been taught, and by psychological upsets and criticisms, the price we pay for our search for understanding how to free ourselves from our savage instincts, which we use as an excuse for our self-destruction.
https://www.humancondition.com/?utm_sour...-interview
What do you think, conservatives? Jason? Classic Xer? Are we just the product of our selfish animalist genes? Or can we learn to do better, like liberals like me say?
As phrased in more rationalistic terms, his theory is similar to the Buddha's from 2500 years ago, who said that our thirst, which is our tendency to unconsciously react and cling, can be blown out and extinguished if we follow a path of liberation, higher consciousness and virtue. And Plato's explanation was not too different either, and so are all the hero's journey stories and original religious ideas too.
Griffith says only science has given us today the potential to know this story in full measure, and that it's a shift from the dominant scientific paradigm. But of course, in fact, the cure requires more than intellect and science, but heart and new age knowledge of the chakras too, and it requires the enlightenment based on Buddhism, and taken further as well with our new age knowledge of spiritual realms and higher consciousness today. But not nonsense, I hasten to add!
Even Rousseau had the clue with his idea of the noble savage, I point out here, and the romantics and the left and hippie new agers already knew this truth, even without science-- and it wasn't phony-- as shown by Dino and Paul and Pooneil. But if science can add to this knowledge further, all well and fine with me. "Supportive and cooperative and loving idealism" becomes known, he says, not just a theory or dogma, and everyone moves left naturally and with relief (but the arrow on his picture is pointed right; someone tell him!).
Griffith's explanation for our loving or moral nature that we deny, centering on nurturing by parents, is similar to Strauss and Howe's explanation for how generations are different. Griffith apparently goes on to include the drive for negentropy, which is similar to Teilhard de Chardin's explanation which he seems not to know about.
https://www.humancondition.com/?utm_sour...-interview
What do you think, conservatives? Jason? Classic Xer? Are we just the product of our selfish animalist genes? Or can we learn to do better, like liberals like me say?
As phrased in more rationalistic terms, his theory is similar to the Buddha's from 2500 years ago, who said that our thirst, which is our tendency to unconsciously react and cling, can be blown out and extinguished if we follow a path of liberation, higher consciousness and virtue. And Plato's explanation was not too different either, and so are all the hero's journey stories and original religious ideas too.
Griffith says only science has given us today the potential to know this story in full measure, and that it's a shift from the dominant scientific paradigm. But of course, in fact, the cure requires more than intellect and science, but heart and new age knowledge of the chakras too, and it requires the enlightenment based on Buddhism, and taken further as well with our new age knowledge of spiritual realms and higher consciousness today. But not nonsense, I hasten to add!
Even Rousseau had the clue with his idea of the noble savage, I point out here, and the romantics and the left and hippie new agers already knew this truth, even without science-- and it wasn't phony-- as shown by Dino and Paul and Pooneil. But if science can add to this knowledge further, all well and fine with me. "Supportive and cooperative and loving idealism" becomes known, he says, not just a theory or dogma, and everyone moves left naturally and with relief (but the arrow on his picture is pointed right; someone tell him!).
Griffith's explanation for our loving or moral nature that we deny, centering on nurturing by parents, is similar to Strauss and Howe's explanation for how generations are different. Griffith apparently goes on to include the drive for negentropy, which is similar to Teilhard de Chardin's explanation which he seems not to know about.