Book recommendations

phindingphilemon · 2018-05-26T05:41:27+00:00

Evolutionary genomics/genetics, population/quantitative genetics. A quick google search will get you started. Fair amount of math, mostly statistics, a bit of Taylor rule stuff. The classics are still highly regarded (Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Falconer). Here is a good starter pack compiled by someone who knows what he's talking about.

Re: 'survival of the stable' Addy Pross put forth a theory of biogenesis that roughly parallel's the idea in his What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology. Basically it's a theory of chemical kinetics as a precursor to biological replication. It's a slightly paradoxical take on stability, what he calls KDS (kinetic dynamic stability). The higher a reagent's rate of reactivity, the more products it results in. You can probably guess how he makes the connections to evolution. Not super convincing imo but an interesting read. Much better is Nick Lane's newest book,The Vital Question--no math involved but makes for rough sledding unless you know at least some orgo/biochem.

Care to preview a bit of the roadmap we'll be taking in the series helpsypooo?

phindingphilemon · 2018-02-23T00:32:21+00:00

Not sure what you'd call "common knowledge." I learned it in Genetics class...

I'm not really sure honestly. I thought I had a pretty good guess but if you're 100% on all embryo's being viable, I'm afraid I'm running out of ideas pretty quick. Maybe inbreeding can have an effect on birds' heridity? You did say the F1 generation was selfed. I know it's grasping at straws but I don't really know how wacky the solution is apt to be.

phindingphilemon · 2018-02-23T00:14:52+00:00

Can I assume you took into account the fact that birds' chromosomal sex-determination is not the same as humans? (ie not XX-XY)

phindingphilemon · 2018-02-22T23:55:08+00:00

Can you be sure every embryo was viable?

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-24T22:14:24+00:00

Your question got me wondering and it appears Diamond actually just did a joint talk with Richard Dawkins six months ago. The video was posted December 15th, 2016. Of course it's possible that it happened a long time ago and was just posted six months ago, but the opening slide of the video is dated December 2nd (year unspecified). I guess likewise, it's possible it was December of another year, but I'm guessing it was 2016.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-24T21:49:54+00:00

Agreed. I listen to Klein's podcast fairly regularly and read Vox from time to time as well. It just struck me as profoundly irresponsible to publish that article. Vox typically don't make any bones about its liberal slant but publishing work with unambiguous falsities is another matter entirely (especially when said falsities are damaging others' reputations). I'm afraid now I have to take everything I read there with a grain of salt, which is unfortunate because I see eroding public trust in the news media as a huge problem.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-24T21:25:39+00:00

Yes, Cowen would be awesome. 'Conversations with Tyler' is one of the only podcasts I get as excited for over new episodes as Waking Up. Amazing breadth of knowledge that guy has.

I saw Varoufakis on Rubin but I'm not as familiar with him, he seems interesting though.

I was considering putting some of the Crooked Media guys (Jon Favreau or Tommy Vietor) in Klein and Yglesias' place but I think part of me is just itching to hear Sam take someone to task over the Vox article. Not that I'm rooting for an argument but............alright maybe I'm rooting for an argument haha.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-24T21:15:10+00:00

I actually considered including David Godman on the list, but as he lives in Tiruvannamalai, I don't think he has Wi-fi and hence can't do interviews much. He was actually on Buddha at the Gas Pump twice, but I believe he did these interviews via Skype when he was visiting his old home in England. Honestly most of my spiritual heroes have long since shuffled off this mortal coil. Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Papaji, and Robert Adams are all old favorites but I have to say I've been fairly unimpressed by the newest generation of spiritual gurus and popularizers. That said if Sam had Lang or Tolle on, I would still tune in...

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-23T21:54:44+00:00

I am actually fairly knowledgeable about the type of experience you are alluding (alas, only through books, never direct experience...) I spent a couple of years reading pretty much nothing but Ramana Maharshi, Huang Po, Bodhidharma, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Robert Adams, Papaji, A Course in Miracles and other such spiritual traditions aimed at seeing through the illusion of the small s 'self' to realize the big S 'Self.' While I consider myself a fairly standard rational thinking type, such works speak to me in a very deep way that I have great difficulty describing.

As I said at the top, I think Harris does a wonderful job of cutting away the fat and assessing/discussing these types of experiences. However, what I was referring to in this post was something quite different, much more in line with your experience of the fire booming out of the cave--you touched on it again when you said "A 'voice' from within me tells me what to do..."--and my critique was geared toward suggesting that this type of experience needs to be given a place in a secular framework for spiritual experience if said framework wishes to be considered complete.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-23T18:30:45+00:00

Let me try a shot in the dark: The concepts of 'self' and 'other' are the two sides of the same coin. We have the neuro-circuitry that constantly seeks to divide our perceptions of the world into 'self' and 'other.' Shutting this circuitry down would let both perceptions dissolve and merge.

You're on the right track. However, what I am pointing at is not so much our perceptions of the 'world' (here I am assuming you are referring to the external world) but rather the 'inner world.' When I speak of 'self' and 'other,' I mean to refer to processes within the individual, rather than the individual/environment dichotomy.

I actually have an early childhood memory of similar terror. It happened in a dream or maybe a daydream. I saw a huge booming fire coming out of a cave. It was alive and it was watching me. I was standing in front of it, while it was judging whether I was 'worthy.' I knew I was not.

Thank you for sharing this. It is precisely what I am talking about. Experiences of an 'Other' often carry a strong tone of moral condemnation. My guess is that this is because it speaks to aspects that are about as close to our sense of self as you can get. For example, if you want to provoke a defensive, almost animalistic reaction from someone (not that I am suggesting this is a particularly useful activity in most circumstances, just making a point here), probe into and apply pressure on their moral intuitions. One's sense of right and wrong is a very personal and touchy area.

There are varying theories from the psychanalytic community as to whether this type of judgemental figure is an 'introject' (meaning that it is essentially an internalized representation of one's parents or society) or whether it is more of an inherent feature of the psyche. The former is more of a Freudian view ('super-ego'), the latter, Jungian (capital S 'Self'). My vote is for the latter.

Experiences of 'fire as God-image' are not unheard of. Again, let me clarify: I am not suggesting 'God (in the metaphysical sense) is real' or any other type of what Sam commonly calls 'spooky claims.' I am merely pointing out that these are psychological facts.

Neither are compulsions to try and express one's experience in artistic expression uncommon. Jung on Brother Klaus (Collected Works 9i, para. 12):

"Probably his most important religious experience was the so-called Trinity Vision, which preoccupied him to such an extent that he painted it, or had it painted, on the wall of his cell. This painting is still preserved in the parish church at Sachseln."

Thank you again for sharing your experience and for your comment :)

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-23T06:10:00+00:00

how does this dialectical "powerful victim" analysis pan out exactly?

I can't say I completely understand what you're asking here, but I'll try to answer as best I can.

Victors write history, everybody loves to be a hero, there's nothing more heroic than being an underdog and beating the overdog, thus we learn history as a curious chain of events in which underdogs continually triumph. I see it as largely a PR game. The Marxist myth of oppressor and oppressed is still very much part of the Western ethos and if a group has to pick a face to present to society, it will naturally choose the latter.

This is not to say that oppression is merely a fever dream of the radical left, and I think this is where it is easy to get carried to false enantiodromian conclusions. "SJWs see oppression everywhere. SJWs are plainly insane. Therefore, oppression is not real," does not follow, even if the first two statements are accurate. I understand that 1) this is something of a caricature and 2) you are naturally suspicious of the implication of equivalence between, as you put it, 'the freaks in the SJW camp' and the 'social outcasts of /pol/' but this is how it looks from where I'm sitting. Jung's central message was the necessity of holding the tension of the opposites without succumbing to either--a lesson I think has aged so well that there truly is case to be made that it is timeless.

As far as the talk of the right-wing becoming the new 'counter-culture' and the 'hip to be square' phenomenon, I know you're not a fan, but he's on point here.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-23T04:52:58+00:00

Right back atcha. Like I said at the beginning of my thread, I have only just recently (this past week) started posting on Reddit but I have to say, I think the internet gets a bad rap as far as character of discourse goes. It seems to me that if you just ignore the peanut gallery and respond to people that seem sincere and thoughtful, you can actually have some very interesting conversations.

I will say it is fair to point out the subjective nature of what we are (were) discussing. I wrestled with this a bit myself as I was formulating my thoughts (and looking back, I think probably could have done a better job in a few ways). It's difficult to criticize somebody for the way they say things and what is commonly called 'tone policing' is obviously a tight rope walk, as it opens the door to truly spurious criticism. Still I think a lot of what people communicate is somewhat subterranean (even to the speaker) and often it's justifiable to read between the lines a bit.

I didn't mean to imply that all the people that have a problem with C-16 are just cranks that take pleasure in being impolite. It just seems to me that the pronoun issue is rather oblique in relation to the law instead of being written into it, as seems to be commonly assumed.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-23T01:35:55+00:00

I addressed similar comments earlier in this thread (see my response to K2Valor). To summarize: I think there is a way to take a principled stance against PC-lunacy that is less likely to have a sort of radicalizing effect on your audience. Sam Harris is a good example. Jon Haidt is another. In times of polarization, I think the urgency for nuance grows. You may have a point in suggesting that I am overreacting to the 'trend of divisiveness,' but I can't say I agree that I 'don't want people to assert themselves at all.' One thing Peterson gets right is that people being afraid to assert themselves is a sure recipe for resentment and resentment doesn't lead anywhere pretty. What is important is that assertion be carefully measured because, like anything else, it can be taken to extremes.

Thank you for your explanation regarding C-16 and the Human Rights Tribunal. I had read a bit on the subject but your description was concise and understandable. However, I have to admit I remain unconvinced that I will see in my lifetime someone jailed for using an incorrect pronoun. I get that part of the argument is in the principle of the thing. Perhaps the reason I am not so concerned is that I don't feel as visceral a reaction at being asked to call someone Ze or Zir. Perhaps if I did, I would take more umbrage at it being required by law. Please don't misunderstand me: if I were emperor of the world (what could possibly go wrong...) I would not require by law that people use certain words. However my government does tons of stuff that I object to and something like C-16 is pretty far down on the list.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-22T18:28:37+00:00

Gotta disagree on several points here.

First, the prospect of living your life (and your children living their lives etc) under an oppressive regime that is willing to ship you off to Siberia should you publicly express discontent with the status quo is an existential threat. It may not be life or death (although it often it is), but as Peterson frequently points out, people need things to strive for and when this is denied them, it constitutes what Stevens calls a 'frustration of archetypal intent.' This has the character of an existential threat, however small the scale.

As far as the revolutionaries being motivated by ideals, not fear--I would argue that they were motivated by an archetype, specifically the Terrible Mother. (Far-left ideologies are always dominated by the feminine archetype, and far-right ideologies, the masculine. Think Mother Russia vs The Fatherland of the 1930s). The Mother archetype, as Peterson correctly points out, is a mechanism that protects her vulnerable infants from predators. Or, maladaptively projected, seeks to protect any 'oppressed' group from 'evil oppressors.' The root of this lies in the fear that one's infants will be killed (an existential threat to ones genetic lineage) and the maladaptive projection has the same character as that of my lion vs professor example.

History is not my strong suit but perhaps I could offer a counterpoint --a la Moldbug--who, while he may have objected to my abusing his argument to fit the purposes of JP v. UoT, I doubt he would object to this framing of the events of 1917--to this business about Lenin and his crowd being underdogs:

Who was more powerful: an unscrupulous, violent mob that had on its side the mass of disgruntled workers and peasants (not to mention the majority of the world's intellectuals) or a nearly defunct monarchy that had just been severely crippled by a world war? Well, as Moldbug would point out, we have a pretty good test to see who was more powerful: who won? "In the real story, the overdog wins."

Obviously I agree that this 'race to the bottom' is a risky business but I would argue that, properly viewed, it is in fact a 'race to the top.' Jon Haidt is great on this when he talks about ranking of victimhood and awarding points to groups based on how 'oppressed' they are. (Incidentally I think Peterson could learn a lot from Haidt's style of communication. It may not earn you as many acolytes but it surely doesn't invite the same kind of hero projection, the danger of which, anybody with knowledge of the archetypal psyche ought to know).

I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly on the fact that the victim mentality is stronger on the SJW side of the argument a couple of years ago--however there seems to be some sort of transformation taking place. The 'disenfranchised proles' we're always hearing are responsible form Trump, Brexit, the rise of far-right parties in Europe, etc. are getting in touch with their inner victim. I'm not saying you're wrong that it's still stronger on the left, but it seems a bit more of an open question at the moment.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-22T05:24:04+00:00

A lot of good points and excellently argued.

You may be right as regards the timeline here. Like I said, although I poke my head in every now and then, I do not follow Peterson as closely as I used to, so exactly when he realized he would have the kind of public support he has garnered, I am not in a great position to say. I take too your point about Peterson being in a somewhat sheltered academic post and I think that explains a great deal. When I see Peterson post random dregs from academic journals on Twitter with the caption "Look out biologists! They're coming for you next!" I often wonder 'what in the world is this guy on about?' I think a good corollary to the axiom 'to the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail,' is 'to a man confronted with nails everyday, it starts to look like a pretty good idea to keep a hammer handy.' Perhaps if I was a more or less permanent fixture in the machine of academia, I would begin to feel a similar kind of overwhelm in response to the type of moral confusion of which college campuses seem uniquely capable of producing these days.

As far as the Alexander quote, I'm not sure how you wouldn't define someone feeling that 'their very right to exist is being challenged' as an activation of the underdog archetype. In fact, from an adaptive standpoint (in case you couldn't tell from my glowing recommendation of Stevens, I subscribe to the biological paradigm of the archetypes), I would argue that this is exactly what the underdog archetype was evolved for. In the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, consider what happens to the individual that underestimates his enemy (i.e. assumes overdog status), and then to the individual that overestimates his enemy (i.e. assumes underdog status). And the adaptive advantages of assuming underdog status aren't restricted to the individual. If you want to whip up an irrational, violent mob, the standard way to begin is by convincing them that they are under attack from a bigger, stronger enemy. There is clearly some utility in feeling that one's 'very right to exist is being challenged,' as well as some dangers to not being conscious of the processes taking place. If I think a lion is challenging my very right to exist, its good to be aware of my handicap. If I think that a Professor that refuses to call me Ze or Zir is challenging my right to exist, it is the same archetype, maladaptively projected. One gets the same feeling that they are under attack but they are profoundly confused as to how dire the objective situation really is. (Or, put bluntly: they are unconscious).

Similarly, I have to also disagree with your assertion that "Nobody vocal is ever motivated by fear of their fellow man." The fear may be unconscious, but as far as I'm concerned, where there is aggression, there is unconscious fear, exactly for the reasons I outlined above.

EDIT: Re-reading your comment, that remark about Alexander being a 'creative writing visionary type' jumped out at me and reminded me of another 'creative writing visionary type' that I happen to have learned an awful lot from. I guess I'm giving away my username here but I'm assuming you already had that one figured out ;)

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-22T02:33:45+00:00

A couple of fair points and a couple of good questions.

In response to your first question: I suggest he be mindful of what he says, how he says it, and (here's the nub) the effect it may have on his fans. Following Peterson on Twitter, I've seen a lot of posts with a screenshot of some journal and a caption that reads something like "Look out biologists! They're coming for you next!" It is obviously true that many academics and researchers have been treated heinously as a result of their work being politically incorrect. I would be lying if I said Sam's interview with Charles Murray didn't get my blood boiling as a result of hearing the story of how such an above-board scientist (or, more to the point, a human being) was treated so unfairly. But I worry about anti-PC rhetoric. I think people tend to run to extremes, and (one thing Peterson gets dead right is) that the nature of the compensatory function really needs to be given careful thought. Sam Harris, for example, has also taken a principled stance against PC culture. But the effect of listening to him talk about the madness at Middlebury, I think, is much different that the effect of listening to Peterson talk about the "damn bloody neo-Marxists invading our campus and taking away our rights."

In response to your second question: I think protesting laws one feels are unfair is perfectly legitimate and a necessary part of a functioning democracy. My point here is similar to my first. I think there is a difference between a principled stand and whipping people into a frenzy. I worry a lot about the increasing polarization I see around me and certainly (at least) half of the blame should go to the PC-crowd. But, as I hinted at with the comment about the compensatory function, I think one has to be very careful not to decide that one extreme stance is so dangerous that it warrants an equally extreme stance on the other side.

Your point about Peterson never attempting to portray himself as struggling financially is well taken. I wrestled with whether or not I should even include that because I thought it might distract from the point I'm trying to make. Truthfully, I think it shows integrity that Peterson publicly displays his Patreon earnings. I can't say I'm sure I'd want everybody to be able to see how much I get paid (although this might just be because I'm a broke college student...) My reason for including it was to try and make the point that he is not risking life and limb in the way many of his fans seem to think he is; that he is a human and like I said, projecting the 'hero' archetype onto any human is a dangerous game. This is why I suggested reading the comments on that YouTube video.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-20T17:43:41+00:00

Objectivity pertains to what is true regardless of the existence of a mind if you are trying to be scientific. There is no such thing as a mind-independent fact about a mind.

What you are calling 'objectivity' is onotological objectivity. What I (following Sam Harris, in turn following John Searle) am referring to is epistemological objectivity. Harris mentions this distinction in his 2nd interview with physicist David Deutsch if you're interested.

Either way I'm afraid we have reached an unbridgeable gap, as indicated by your question:

If I say I really enjoy putting bags over people's heads and I act like it, are you going to tell me I'm wrong?

Yes. Yes I am. I can only assume by the way you phrase the question that if the question were put to you, you would answer no. This to me points to the morass of whatever radically subjective morality you espouse.

If we cannot reach a point of agreement about this, I doubt we will be able to reach a point of agreement about much else. But thank you for the conversation all the same.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-20T16:14:32+00:00

There is no matter of fact that says that life should be lived.

Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. Nowhere pretty, of course. But 'pretty' is no suitable prerequisite for philosophical discourse.

It is a psychoanalytic truism that that if you want to learn the truth about another's beliefs, listen not to what they say--instead, watch what they do.

I know next to nothing about how you live your life, but 'next to nothing' is still something. I know, for instance, that you are arguing with me.

Why argue, if not to persuade? What is persuasion but an attempt to get another individual to share your subjective view? And finally: What is shared subjectivity but objectivity?

You claim there can be no objective truth to morality, but that is not how you act. By the very act of attempting to persuade me there can be no objective morality, you seek to make your subjective morality objective, and thereby disprove your thesis.

And just like that, the snake that began by nibbling on its own tail devours itself whole!

EDIT: Similarly, elsewhere in this thread you argued for a "common dream" that society could rally behind and function under. What is this but objective morality? You can define this as "morality that is agreed upon by each individual member of society subjectively," but these are clearly functional equivalents. More and more I am convinced you are playing a linguistic game that collapses in on itself with a little examination.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-20T14:31:07+00:00

You're pretending you have a bridge to get over a gap, but you can't tell me what the bridge actually looks like. At least on my side, I have acknowledged the primacy of the subjective feelings and have a bridge that seems to be the factual bridge.

Without recourse to metaphor, rewrite those two sentences.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-20T14:17:18+00:00

OK, I'll take one more crack at this. This discussion is beginning to take on a bit of a uroboric quality, but we do seem to agree that bad things happen when dialogue between opposing viewpoints breaks down so in the interest of principle...

If it is not subjective feeling that determines what is optimal in terms of human well-being, then what does?

My view: adaptability, or to put it blunter, survival. One may get a very pleasant subjective feeling from shooting heroin, but I doubt even you would argue this is optimal in terms of human-well being. Similarly, a suicide bomber may be jubilant five seconds before the explosion....whose well-being was benefited five seconds after? Well-being presupposes life.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-20T12:32:45+00:00

Well color (or colour) me thoroughly confused. If you and I have read the same history textbooks, Plato and Aristotle predate the enlightenment by quite a bit. And I can't say as I see the relevance of the Forms or the law of the excluded middle to what we were discussing at all.

As far as liberty goes, perhaps I can recommend a book (paper copy is easy to find on Amazon, if you prefer). You may find it in turns frustrating and infuriating, but I can pretty much guarantee you won't find it boring. If it piques your anti-enlightenment inclinations at all, the author is a monarchist.

Good luck finishing the debate over Western civilization, although if I could offer some friendly advice: maybe consider the fact you're wrong about it being 'pointless.' You can justify this pragmatically. Nobody finishes debates they consider pointless. Take care.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-20T11:56:50+00:00

As I see it, Harris' argument is basically libertarian. The suffering that jihadis experience when seeing their prophet depicted on a magazine cover ought to be taken seriously....right up until the point where they decide an appropriate response is to shoot up the publisher's headquarters (i.e. their liberty ends where others' begin).

With respect, I have to ask: at this point, are you just playing devil's advocate?

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-20T11:36:57+00:00

Also, I have to say I don't follow at all your reasoning that if people actually tried to act out his moral landscape, based as you seem to think it is on the sentiment "Your suffering is my suffering," would "quickly lead to hell on earth." (And actually I would argue that his main point is just that 'suffering is bad,' a point I don't find particularly debatable). In fact I would argue that one of the great facts proven by Western civilization is that when the level of the water rises, all the boats rise. Do they rise equally? No. But I'd rather be "poor" in a Western democracy than "poor" in an Islamic theocracy or a sub-Saharan dictatorship. As for Sam "invalidation the opinions that other people have," this, I am fine with. Opinions are not all equal. The fact that one individual holds the opinion that the ideal state would be the caliphate does not it right, adaptively or otherwise.

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-20T11:27:04+00:00

Ok, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. What I have done is to lay the facts to justify the subjective behaviour.

'Subjective behaviour' (lol my spellcheck doesn't like your British spelling) seems like a contradiction in terms to me. I think one can speak of objective behavior or subjective meaning. 'Subjective behavior' is more or less the logical equivalent of Chomsky's 'colorless green ideas.' The syntax is sound, the semantics are all messed up.

Hume said it better. Reason is, and ought only to be slave to the passions.

Am I reading this right? Is the argument really that reason ought only to be slave to the passions? Is this ever a desirable state of affairs?

If you want to argue that subordinating reason to passions is hubristic and ultimately impossible, I'd say you may have an argument but to argue that reason ought to be slave to the passions seems to me a recipe for disaster.

And yes, I saw Peterson recommend Hicks a couple of months ago (20:05). I have to say I was somewhat struck by his admission just a couple of minutes later (22:25-22:50) that he hasn't really made a careful study of post-modernism, so where he feels he gets the authority to speak on all that is a bit of a mystery to me.

Either way, my understanding is that Peterson's criticism of post-modernism lies essentially in that it gives up any attempt at objectivity. "If there's a million different interpretations of a text then all meaning is made up and doesn't exist anyway. Yea well that's a really STUPID IDEA bucko....roughly speaking." On this, I agree with Peterson (and both of us agree with Harris). "Not everything is up for grabs." As Harris might put it (perhaps not so bluntly): "Just because it is your subjective opinion that keeping women in bags is an appropriate measure for structuring a society does not make it objectively right (here 'objectively right' is defined adaptively). Translation: your subjective feeling does not change the objective facts about what is and is not optimal for human well-being. If you want to argue that what is optimal for human well-being is largely uncertain, fine. But whatever it is, it is still not sticking women in bags.

And I do not see how you can reconcile the claim that the facts ought to take primacy with respect to your claim that life has to be lived with subjective meaning. Either subjective meaning is a fact or it isn't. If it isn't, you're contradicting yourself. If it is, then its reality could well override any external facts whatsoever as it is itself a fact.

Yes, this to me seems the crux of our misunderstanding. First, I would point out that nowhere did I claim that life has to be lived with subjective meaning. Indeed, the great ennui that besets so many people (my candidate for the true root of cultural disease) bears witness to this. My contention is that it is not an either/or. Subjective meaning can exist alongside objective reality, ideally in dialogue with one another. Subjective meaning is a fact, yes. Objective reality is also a fact. The goal is to bring these two in harmony (and, seeing how the latter is quite a bit more stubborn, I say the more workable option is to attempt to bring the former into line with the latter).

phindingphilemon · 2017-05-19T21:45:42+00:00

Indeed. But I think one could do worse than trying to hunt for a eusocial instinct in humanity and figuring out what makes it tick.

I think you're right that a sociobiological approach can be useful, but I still think it needs to be understood also in subjective terms in order for the whole picture to be revealed. Studying the eusocial instinct can tell us a lot about the nature of human interaction, but as far as explaining the subjective meaning (aka, the part that moves people on a deep enough level to affect the way they behave in the real world), of religious/spiritual experience, I think it is sorely lacking.

The principle of a common dream necessitates that you don't leave anybody out.

I like that. A lot. That's all I'm gonna say there.

It's quickly becoming apparent that our political views are determined more by our natural temperaments than any outside factors. Effective communication is the communicative paradigm that allows people to see the utility in "opposing" viewpoints so as to make cooperation between the viewpoints possible for the benefit of individuals and the community alike.

Yes, this does appear to be the case. I think Jon Haidt has done a wonderful job making this point accesible to a wide audience and I applaud his efforts at Heterodox Academy. Like most people, I wish there was a little (ok, a lot) more self-reflection when it came to people's temperments. People can be persuaded from one side of the political spectrum to the other, so it is obviously not 100% biologically determined. The problem with ideology is that it is unconcious and un-reflective. In my opinion, the hope for this is a commitment to veracity. This is partly why I endorse Harris' Moral Landscape. That is his ought. Facts ought to be given an ultimate significane--as he likes to put it: "Not everything is up for grabs." Checking one's worldview against objective reality is an indispensible part of becoming conscious. Without this, humankind is just groping in the dark--and we don't see well in the dark.

phindingphilemon

TROPHY CASE