a challenge to the conservative worldview

[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.

[JasonBlack]

"Are we just the product of our selfish animalist genes? Or can we learn to do better, like liberals like me say?"
Well, right off the bad, your question is loaded .   "Learning to do better" is the goal of any human with some level of basic principles, and that certainly includes conservatives. If anything, it's conservatives who are more likely to engage in "self-directed warfare" rather than focusing more on societal ideals. 

What conservatives are really most concerned with is the natural human tendency toward self-destructive impulses, on instincts that push people to short term gratification rather than long term prosperity.

[pbrower2a]

(10-15-2022, 10:18 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: "Are we just the product of our selfish animalist genes? Or can we learn to do better, like liberals like me say?"
Well, right off the bad, your question is loaded .   "Learning to do better" is the goal of any human with some level of basic principles, and that certainly includes conservatives. If anything, it's conservatives who are more likely to engage in "self-directed warfare" rather than focusing more on societal ideals. 

What conservatives are really most concerned with is the natural human tendency toward self-destructive impulses, on instincts that push people to short term gratification rather than long term prosperity.

We need recall that many who now call themselves "conservatives" in truth euphemize their fascism -- their irrationalism, anger, bigotry, sadism, recklessness, superstition,  snobbishness, exaggerated nationalism, and tolerance of authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Holy cow! All of that is pathology... then again, fascism is the purest expression of political pathology. Fascism always degrades even if it does not destroy, so I would expect you to reject it.   I'm not so sure about Classic X'er, though. 

Immediate gratification usually comes at an excessive cost in behaviors that bankrupt, sicken, disgrace, and stupefy those who live exclusively for them. The sugar-and-starch highs lead to tooth decay and diabetes. Reckless sex brings about STD's and unwelcome pregnancies. Gambling and impulse shopping easily ruin one. Speeding and other bad driving, like other cheap thrills can cripple one. The grim satisfaction from beating up someone that one dislikes from either a personal grudge or some form of bigotry can get one hurt and can get one a prison term. In view of my record I need say little of drugs or alcohol. All of these delights are both expensive and evanescent. 

Eschewing such delights to get something more satisfying is maturity. Everything has an opportunity cost, so giving up a few doughnuts might allow one to enjoy a lobster dinner. It takes few self-denials of trips to a casino to blow a couple hundred dollars to afford a motorcoach tour of Italy or a Baltic cruise. Bruckner's symphonies take more time to appreciate than the usual top-40 hit, but they offer more profound experiences.  Thrift of course allows one nicer stuff, except in inflationary times. Deferred gratification is a learned taste.    

Deferral is not denial. Denial of gratification means that one chooses to do without altogether -- or more likely has that way imposed upon one by those who exploit one severely. To make sacrifices on behalf of one's progeny is one thing. To submit to severe exploitation on behalf of economic and administrative responsible only to themselves is another.  Toiling without end for the indulgence of exploiters  so that one can get Pie in the Sky When You Die is something that one accepts if the alternative is to be whipped, starved, or executed. 

One of the strongest temptations in human history is to live far better than others through exploitation of others, and that the worst manifestation of such is sundry forms of slavery. Need I say more of that?

Conservatives have the obligation to find something worthy of protection. A noble and rich culture? Rule of law? Opportunity for all? Sustainable economics? Rational thought and the potential for creativity and innovation?    

Sustainable and repeatable happiness, accor4ding to Aristotle and others after him, is the test of the validity of a life. We all rightly live at the least to dodge pain, guilt, disgrace, and deprivation.

[JasonBlack]

(10-16-2022, 10:01 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-15-2022, 10:18 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: "Are we just the product of our selfish animalist genes? Or can we learn to do better, like liberals like me say?"
Well, right off the bad, your question is loaded .   "Learning to do better" is the goal of any human with some level of basic principles, and that certainly includes conservatives. If anything, it's conservatives who are more likely to engage in "self-directed warfare" rather than focusing more on societal ideals. 

What conservatives are really most concerned with is the natural human tendency toward self-destructive impulses, on instincts that push people to short term gratification rather than long term prosperity.

We need recall that many who now call themselves "conservatives" in truth euphemize their fascism -- their irrationalism, anger, bigotry, sadism, recklessness, superstition,  snobbishness, exaggerated nationalism, and tolerance of authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Holy cow! All of that is pathology... then again, fascism is the purest expression of political pathology. Fascism always degrades even if it does not destroy, so I would expect you to reject it.   I'm not so sure about Classic X'er, though. 

Immediate gratification usually comes at an excessive cost in behaviors that bankrupt, sicken, disgrace, and stupefy those who live exclusively for them. The sugar-and-starch highs lead to tooth decay and diabetes. Reckless sex brings about STD's and unwelcome pregnancies. Gambling and impulse shopping easily ruin one. Speeding and other bad driving, like other cheap thrills can cripple one. The grim satisfaction from beating up someone that one dislikes from either a personal grudge or some form of bigotry can get one hurt and can get one a prison term. In view of my record I need say little of drugs or alcohol. All of these delights are both expensive and evanescent. 

Eschewing such delights to get something more satisfying is maturity. Everything has an opportunity cost, so giving up a few doughnuts might allow one to enjoy a lobster dinner. It takes few self-denials of trips to a casino to blow a couple hundred dollars to afford a motorcoach tour of Italy or a Baltic cruise. Bruckner's symphonies take more time to appreciate than the usual top-40 hit, but they offer more profound experiences.  Thrift of course allows one nicer stuff, except in inflationary times. Deferred gratification is a learned taste.    

Deferral is not denial. Denial of gratification means that one chooses to do without altogether -- or more likely has that way imposed upon one by those who exploit one severely. To make sacrifices on behalf of one's progeny is one thing. To submit to severe exploitation on behalf of economic and administrative responsible only to themselves is another.  Toiling without end for the indulgence of exploiters  so that one can get Pie in the Sky When You Die is something that one accepts if the alternative is to be whipped, starved, or executed. 

One of the strongest temptations in human history is to live far better than others through exploitation of others, and that the worst manifestation of such is sundry forms of slavery. Need I say more of that?

Conservatives have the obligation to find something worthy of protection. A noble and rich culture? Rule of law? Opportunity for all? Sustainable economics? Rational thought and the potential for creativity and innovation?    

Sustainable and repeatable happiness, accor4ding to Aristotle and others after him, is the test of the validity of a life. We all rightly live at the least to dodge pain, guilt, disgrace, and deprivation.

This all sounds pretty conservative to me, just more the conservatism of a GI or Silent Gen rather than that more common among Boomers and Xers.

Speaking of Classic Xer, I don't perceive him as a fascist. He has a brand of disagreeable individualism and cynicism that I relate to rather easily, but in typical Nomad fashion, he's more likely to grunt "I'll do it myself! Leave me alone!" and go about his business. At worst, I could see him slipping into a kind of hardline populism and/or being duped into voting for a closet fascist, but in practice, I think all the bureaucracy, over-policing, obnoxious rhetoric and breeches of privacy would push him away from that.

On some level, I think he wants to explain himself more (why else would he be on a forum for discussing generational cycles? this isn't a topic that appeals to anti-intellectuals), but, in my experience, recessive generations tend to be less explanatory by nature. Nomads tends to focus more on individualistic problem solving and action over theory, while Adaptives prefer behind-the-scenes roles and are more likely to speak in terms of suggestions than longer explanations of opinions. Dominant generations, whether Idealists and Civics, share an assertiveness in wanting to change society that pushes them to explain themselves and try to bring people over to their way of thinking (you can find plenty of exceptions to all of these, but this is the general pattern I've noticed).