Hugs, handshakes and the herd

[Matt Gregory]

I was reading the "Hugs and Handshakes" article in Genius News,
found here: http://www.users.bigpond.com/drowden/is ... hakes_hugs
and I've been thinking lately about the use of words like "herd" to try and communicate some philosophical point. I suppose I'm still enchanted with the foolish idea that you can take a "herd animal" and educate him, but when normal people, herd people, do things like teach a child to shake hands, they're not thinking along the lines of "Oh man! This kid needs to learn how to be a better part of the herd!" What they're thinking is, "This kid needs to learn how to better participate in civilization. I don't want my kid to be a sub-human animal." I don't think the intention there is bad, it's just that the criteria for a "civilized person" has a certain limit that people don't seem to be aware of, and once that limit is exceeded by an exceptional person, it looks to the herd person as if the exception is not above the sub-human animal level.

I guess I'm just wondering why it's so difficult to get a herd person to think about this "civilization limit" and consider what civilization would be like if it were extended. Even bringing up the subject automatically puts us at the level of sub-human in the eyes of the herd people. Why do you think that is? Is it something we are doing wrong? Are we not being as effective as we could be? Or is the act of asking this question proof that I'm still captivated by the herd? Nietzsche once wrote:

Let one not be deceived about oneself! If one hears within oneself the moral imperative as it is understood by altruism, one belongs to the herd. If one has the opposite feeling, if one feels one's danger and aberration lies in disinterested and selfless actions, one does not belong to the herd.

-- The Will To Power #286

If one does not belong to the herd and is indifferent to the herd, then how does that person look at the herd? I assume herd still exists for him, but I can't really imagine what this indifference could consist of or how far it should be taken. Indifference is a matter of degree, really. Or is it possible to be totally indifferent? Total indifference would be a complete lack of acknowledgement of the existence of the herd, but then what is the herd? Is it the actual people of the herd or is it that the concept of the herd is no longer considered? It seems totally impractical either way.

[DHodges]

I’d like to play “herd’s advocate” for a bit here.

but when normal people, herd people, do things like teach a child to shake hands, they're not thinking along the lines of "Oh man! This kid needs to learn how to be a better part of the herd!" What they're thinking is, "This kid needs to learn how to better participate in civilization. I don't want my kid to be a sub-human animal."

Well, of course you want to teach your kids to have social skills. But what it often comes down to is trying to teach them to not be incredibly annoying, disgusting little fucks, brats or bullies. The behavior kids come up with on their own tends to be really obnoxious.

Raw human nature is pretty nasty. It needs a LOT of taming. Humans are the most destructive creatures on the planet. I think the historical evidence of wars, genocide, inquisitions and so on speaks for itself - and that’s AFTER civilization.

Civilization is a thin veneer spread over the raw animal nature. Through evolution, that nature was refined into a drive for survival and dominance. It’s through civilization – forming a “herd” – that humans are able to cooperate on a larger level, and put that desire for dominance – the constant competition – to some productive use.

The term “herd” is used disparagingly, with disdain. But for humans, it means civilization. It means learning a language, and through that, access to huge bodies of knowledge. It means access to medical care and sanitation. It’s everything that makes a modern economy, which is one whole hell of a lot.

It’s a lot more than meaningless rituals, protocols, and gestures like handshakes and hugs, being polite, saying please and thank you.

I don't think the intention there is bad, it's just that the criteria for a "civilized person" has a certain limit that people don't seem to be aware of, and once that limit is exceeded by an exceptional person, it looks to the herd person as if the exception is not above the sub-human animal level.

The exceptional person, is of course, the exception, not the rule. For most people, getting them to act civilized is about the best you can hope for. Watch the news on any given day to see how far civilization goes. What we need is a hell of a lot more civilized behavior, not less.

It’s somewhat dangerous to talk about the exceptional person, because everyone thinks they are exceptional in some way. It is easy for people to come up with reasons why the normal rules don’t apply to them.

If one does not belong to the herd and is indifferent to the herd, then how does that person look at the herd?

I suppose you would have to live in a cave, and be a hunter-gatherer. I don’t see how else you could avoid interacting with other people.

I assume herd still exists for him, but I can't really imagine what this indifference could consist of or how far it should be taken. Indifference is a matter of degree, really. Or is it possible to be totally indifferent? Total indifference would be a complete lack of acknowledgement of the existence of the herd, but then what is the herd? Is it the actual people of the herd or is it that the concept of the herd is no longer considered? It seems totally impractical either way.

Yes, in practical reality, the herd is too large to be ignored. It lays claim to the entire planet, although you might be able to escape it deep in a jungle or in an arctic wasteland. And those are places where a single person, with no outside support, would probably die pretty quickly.

People may sometimes talk disdainfully of the herd in order to place themselves above it. In that case, they have not removed themselves from it at all, but merely expressed the desire to be the alpha – to be at the top of the herd. The ego asserts itself once again.

It is quite possible, though, to not care about your status in the herd, to not be obsessed with what other people think of you - to let go of the ego - to not be emotionally attached to the herd.


By the way, thanks for the pointer to the “Genius News” archives. There’s lots of great stuff there I had forgotten about.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, of course you want to teach your kids to have social skills. But what it often comes down to is trying to teach them to not be incredibly annoying, disgusting little fucks, brats or bullies. The behavior kids come up with on their own tends to be really obnoxious.

I'd hardly say they have "come up with" any sort of behaviour on their own. They may be predisposed to certain reactions genetically, educationally and environmentally -- but on their own? How does that work?

Raw human nature is pretty nasty. It needs a LOT of taming. Humans are the most destructive creatures on the planet. I think the historical evidence of wars, genocide, inquisitions and so on speaks for itself - and that’s AFTER civilization.

After or before civilisation? I identify none of these events with the meaning of civilisation. From what brand of civilisation do you speak? Raw human nature is ignorance.

Matt, an indifference to the herd is exactly that: a lack of importance either way. I am happy to shake someone's hand, or not, as long as I am looking them dead-straight in the eyes at the same time -- or not.

Why, if I am indifferent, would I fret for one second over the idea of being considered sub-human by anyone -- much less over any of the following questions?

Is it something we are doing wrong? Are we not being as effective as we could be? Or is the act of asking this question proof that I'm still captivated by the herd?

DHodges does make some valid points. I reckon, however, it's pretty important to remember that civilisation, humanity and herdliness are definitely not synonymous -- at least not by my reasoning. Herdliness is reserved strictly for needy and insecure. It is, through and through, nothing more than a very specific mentality. The trouble is, a member of the herd cannot imagine humanity and civilisation beyond that mentality. It's a very scary idea. Which is an incredibly funny (in a non-humorous way) thing, to me.

I am sure you have seen enough wildlife documentaries to have an idea of the purpose and behaviour of herds. At least they are afraid of lions and tigers and bears. We, in all our glorious herdliness, are afraid of ourselves.

Both predator and prey -- complete with table etiquette and moral indignance -- within the one species.

Civilisation is yet to come.

Ironic, eh?

A handshake? To hell with it.

[Blair]

I guess I'm just wondering why it's so difficult to get a herd person to think about this "civilization limit" and consider what civilization would be like if it were extended. Even bringing up the subject automatically puts us at the level of sub-human in the eyes of the herd people. Why do you think that is? Is it something we are doing wrong? Are we not being as effective as we could be? Or is the act of asking this question proof that I'm still captivated by the herd?

I think the "herd" mentality sees it as taboo to question the essence of basic behaviours and cultural formations. It stems from pride in racial heritage, the hubris of inherited cultures as being somehow the best way, and also a sense of humility about it all, the idea that "my" ancestors did it this way, so it is the best/only way. there is no capacity to imagine drastic alternatives, the mind would reject the idea outright as a spit in the face of my "blood" and background etc, all these kind of things which humans are unfortunately so prone to. Just look at how people view their friends as "amazing people" and so on, there is no objectivity involved, it's just an emotional attachment to what is in their sphere of existence.

Or is it possible to be totally indifferent? Total indifference would be a complete lack of acknowledgement of the existence of the herd, but then what is the herd? Is it the actual people of the herd or is it that the concept of the herd is no longer considered? It seems totally impractical either way.

I see it as impossible to be indifferent to the herd, since you evolved "from" it. You can never escape it, in a practical sense, you just become a contrast to it. The herd is a set of parameters within which most human behaviour takes place, it isn't the actual members of it, but a set of values and patterns that repeat over and over through generations.

[Matt Gregory]

I’d like to play “herd’s advocate” for a bit here.

By all means.

but when normal people, herd people, do things like teach a child to shake hands, they're not thinking along the lines of "Oh man! This kid needs to learn how to be a better part of the herd!" What they're thinking is, "This kid needs to learn how to better participate in civilization. I don't want my kid to be a sub-human animal."

Well, of course you want to teach your kids to have social skills. But what it often comes down to is trying to teach them to not be incredibly annoying, disgusting little fucks, brats or bullies. The behavior kids come up with on their own tends to be really obnoxious.

Raw human nature is pretty nasty. It needs a LOT of taming.

I think this all fits in the "sub-human animal" category of behavior.

Humans are the most destructive creatures on the planet. I think the historical evidence of wars, genocide, inquisitions and so on speaks for itself - and that’s AFTER civilization.

Well, civilization enabled these things. Civilization version 1, to put it in software terms. The question I'm trying to pose is shouldn't we be working towards civilization version 2?

Civilization is a thin veneer spread over the raw animal nature.

Seems to me like it's a bit more than that, since it enabled large changes in human living conditions and, by extension, the environment.

Through evolution, that nature was refined into a drive for survival and dominance.

Hmm, I would think it's the other way around. The drive for survival and dominance creating evolution.

It’s through civilization – forming a “herd” – that humans are able to cooperate on a larger level, and put that desire for dominance – the constant competition – to some productive use.

It gave us power, yeah, and I think that's really what we should be aiming at. What type of power do we really want to get out of civilization? I see civilization as a type of technology. It's a set of ideas that are used to make something manifest in the physical world (better quality of life). It's a tool.

The term “herd” is used disparagingly, with disdain. But for humans, it means civilization. It means learning a language, and through that, access to huge bodies of knowledge. It means access to medical care and sanitation. It’s everything that makes a modern economy, which is one whole hell of a lot.

But is it something that's absolute and can't be refined or improved? What I was getting at when I was talking about the limit of civilization is that this tool, in its current incarnation, is finite. Although it has its strengths, it also has its limitations. I just find it illogical that if someone becomes civilized (educated, well socialized, and whatever) and then they begin to question an aspect of civilization, even a trivial aspect, and decide that it has no benefit for them or society and want to put down the burden of it, they would face resistance from society. But if society were truly civilized, I wouldn't think it would be a problem. And I think the problem is that people don't see civilization as a benefit to move us forward, they see it only as a burden to prevent us from slipping backwards by providing a line of defense against the uncivilized. No one wants to take a chance in order to develop it because they are too afraid that doing so would be weakening that defense, and I think it's a stifling attitude.

It’s a lot more than meaningless rituals, protocols, and gestures like handshakes and hugs, being polite, saying please and thank you.

Civilization is obviously complex with an uncountable number of aspects, but I think it's important to re-evaluate each of these aspects, even the trivial ones. A small burden on development is still a burden, so why keep it around if it gives us no benefit? Why shake hands to prove that you're not carrying a weapon when no one in the culture you're living in carries around a drawn weapon? I mean, for pete's sake, if we're bent on doing rituals we could at least come up with a more appropriate ritual or something! We can't even manage to do that.

I don't think the intention there is bad, it's just that the criteria for a "civilized person" has a certain limit that people don't seem to be aware of, and once that limit is exceeded by an exceptional person, it looks to the herd person as if the exception is not above the sub-human animal level.

The exceptional person, is of course, the exception, not the rule. For most people, getting them to act civilized is about the best you can hope for. Watch the news on any given day to see how far civilization goes. What we need is a hell of a lot more civilized behavior, not less.

But why must hoping to civilize the hard-to-civilize involve suppressing those who can go beyond our current version of civilization and lead its development?

It’s somewhat dangerous to talk about the exceptional person, because everyone thinks they are exceptional in some way. It is easy for people to come up with reasons why the normal rules don’t apply to them.

By "exceptional person" I was thinking of someone who has thought through a certain aspect of civilization, like handshakes, decided that it has no value, and is correct in this assessment. Someone who has advanced beyond civilization and is capable of improving it. So it's dangerous, so it's easy to make a claim, so what? That doesn't automatically make everyone wrong about it, but this is how we look at it. The exceptions may not be the rule, but the rule rules out all of the exceptions. I think that's a pretty dumb rule.

It is quite possible, though, to not care about your status in the herd, to not be obsessed with what other people think of you - to let go of the ego - to not be emotionally attached to the herd.

So would such a person shake someone's hand if it was offered to him or not?

By the way, thanks for the pointer to the “Genius News” archives. There’s lots of great stuff there I had forgotten about.

Yeah, I enjoy those a lot, too.

[Matt Gregory]

Matt, an indifference to the herd is exactly that: a lack of importance either way. I am happy to shake someone's hand, or not, as long as I am looking them dead-straight in the eyes at the same time -- or not.

Why, if I am indifferent, would I fret for one second over the idea of being considered sub-human by anyone -- much less over any of the following questions?

Is it something we are doing wrong? Are we not being as effective as we could be? Or is the act of asking this question proof that I'm still captivated by the herd?

But is this indifference to the herd, or indifference within the herd? There's a big difference!

DHodges does make some valid points. I reckon, however, it's pretty important to remember that civilisation, humanity and herdliness are definitely not synonymous -- at least not by my reasoning. Herdliness is reserved strictly for needy and insecure. It is, through and through, nothing more than a very specific mentality.

It sounds to me like you're thinking of it in a colloquial sense, but when using it as a philosophical term it encompasses all needy and insecure behavior no matter how small or trivial we may think of it. That type of picking and choosing becomes irrelevant. If someone shakes someone's hand out of neediness, then that person is philosophically "herdly" no matter how small that need is. The logical consequence of that, as it stands right now, is that everyone who shakes hands belongs to the herd, because so far no one has established that there is any reason other than neediness and insecurity for people to shake hands.

I am sure you have seen enough wildlife documentaries to have an idea of the purpose and behaviour of herds. At least they are afraid of lions and tigers and bears. We, in all our glorious herdliness, are afraid of ourselves.

Well, maybe someday the television producers will wake up and make a wildlife documentary featuring people instead.

Oh, I forgot. We already have those, only the voice of the Leonard Nimoy soundalike is missing.

[DHodges]

Raw human nature is pretty nasty. It needs a LOT of taming.

I think this all fits in the "sub-human animal" category of behavior.

Right. You are not properly "human" until you have learned quite a few things. Infants take quite a while before they can do even very basic things like feed themselves, or walk and talk. Being human - being civilized - takes a lot of training.

Well, civilization enabled these things. Civilization version 1, to put it in software terms. The question I'm trying to pose is shouldn't we be working towards civilization version 2?

Okay. The obvious questions are, what should that civilization be like, and how should we get there? Can we get there from here? (Hardly new questions.)

It's easy enough to point out what's wrong with a particular society we have, to see the mistakes that have been made. It's much more difficult to find solutions that won't cause even bigger problems.

How do you assure, for instance, that kids are brought up well? Do you use the force of government - or does that force cause greater problems, robbing people of important freedoms, and enforcing an undesireable homogeneity?

Through evolution, that nature was refined into a drive for survival and dominance.

Hmm, I would think it's the other way around. The drive for survival and dominance creating evolution.

That's maybe a bit of a chicken/egg question. Evolution and survival are intimately intertwined.

It gave us power, yeah, and I think that's really what we should be aiming at. What type of power do we really want to get out of civilization? I see civilization as a type of technology. It's a set of ideas that are used to make something manifest in the physical world (better quality of life). It's a tool.

That's a good way to look at it. You can use a tool without being heavily emotionally invested in it. I'd say a civilization is (in part) a large, shared collection of tools and technologies.

I just find it illogical that if someone becomes civilized (educated, well socialized, and whatever) and then they begin to question an aspect of civilization, even a trivial aspect, and decide that it has no benefit for them or society and want to put down the burden of it, they would face resistance from society. But if society were truly civilized, I wouldn't think it would be a problem.

Civilization is inherently conservative. If something "works" (allows the civilization to continue), then there is a natural resistance to changing it, even if another way might work better. There is always a risk, a cost, involved in change. The reason(s) something "works" might not be obvious.

Civilizations evolve, like species do. Evolution generally works through small changes over time.

No one wants to take a chance in order to develop it because they are too afraid that doing so would be weakening that defense, and I think it's a stifling attitude.

Things change all the time - just at a rate that can seem very slow from the perspective of an individual. But if you look back 30 years, or 100 years, you can see that there have been large changes.

Compare that to, say, ancient Egypt, where you can see art styles that lasted for hundreds of years.

You are correct that the individual is stifled.

Civilization is obviously complex with an uncountable number of aspects, but I think it's important to re-evaluate each of these aspects, even the trivial ones. A small burden on development is still a burden, so why keep it around if it gives us no benefit?

That's how evolution works. A species becomes too heavy to fly, but it takes a very long time for the wings to become smaller. In the meantime, another use for wings may be found. That's not really a very good example, but evolution re-purposes things all the time.

Why shake hands to prove that you're not carrying a weapon when no one in the culture you're living in carries around a drawn weapon? I mean, for pete's sake, if we're bent on doing rituals we could at least come up with a more appropriate ritual or something! We can't even manage to do that.

That may be where the custom originated, and that particular reason is obsolete. But shaking hands still has a purpose. It's part of the protocols that go along with civilization. For instance, there are different ways to shake hands, relating to different subcultures. It's part of establishing an identity.

It may have other reasons as well. In the U.S., at least, physical touching is very limited. Between men, a handshake might be all the physical contact they ever have.

But why must hoping to civilize the hard-to-civilize involve suppressing those who can go beyond our current version of civilization and lead its development?

That's a damn good question.

A society can only change at a certain rate. A society is not a single, homogenous entity. It is a large collection of individuals - or really, it is the knowledge, ideas, opinions, language, technology, and so on that those individuals have. There can only be a certain amount of variation from the norm for an individual to still be in that group - just like, genetically, an individual can only have a certain amount of variance from the group and still be reproductively viable within that group.

The exceptions may not be the rule, but the rule rules out all of the exceptions. I think that's a pretty dumb rule.

It doesn't rule out all exceptions. It rules out things that are too far from the norm.

An individual may decide that, I don't know, Esperanto is a much better language than English. They might be right, they might be completely mistaken. But still, they are in an English-speaking culture. A language changes slowly enough over time to be more or less continuous - you can still read stuff that was written 200 years ago, but you will notice the difference.

But if a bunch of people agree, they can form an Esperanto-speaking subculture. In time, the benefits of Esperanto might become proven.

It's also possible that Esperanto could be better, but not enough better to justify changing from English. (I think that's what happened with the metric system in the US - it is better, but not better enough to justify the cost of changing everything.)

It is quite possible, though, to not care about your status in the herd, to not be obsessed with what other people think of you - to let go of the ego - to not be emotionally attached to the herd.

So would such a person shake someone's hand if it was offered to him or not?

I can't claim to be completely free of emotional attachments, so I can only tell you what I do. I shake people's hand when it is socially appropriate. It doesn't mean anything to me, but obviously some people expect it.

There's a lot of stuff that I object to in our culture. I could spend all day objecting to stuff... or I can let go of it.

To take a different example, consider people saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes. I think that's completely retarded, and I don't do it. As an atheist, it would be very hypocritical for me to say it.

But on the other hand, when people say it to me, I ignore it. I assume they mean well, or say it unthinkingly. I could go off on a rant about how stupid it is, but why? I would have to have a strong emotional attachment to the issue to do that. I would have to think it is important. And really, it just isn't.

It may be a symptom of a much larger problem, but it's just a symptom. Fighting it doesn't fight the real problem, so it's pretty pointless.

With shaking hands, I don't think it's important whether you do it or not. I think what's important is whether you have some attachment to it. Do you do it because that's what the situation calls for, and it would be inappropriate not to? Or do you shake hands because you want people to like you?

If you don't shake hands, do you refuse because you think there is something wrong with it, or because you feel you need to make some point to "the herd"?

[Jamesh]

DavidH: What we need is a hell of a lot more civilized behaviour, not less.

I am not so certain that this is true. The opposite could be of as much benefit.

“Let one not be deceived about oneself! If one hears within oneself the moral imperative as it is understood by altruism, one belongs to the herd”

IMO, people only change when nature forces them to. If things are really civilised then there might not be sufficient hardship to get people used to thinking for themselves. Civilised more or less means equality – everyone is treated equally and fairly - but is equality such a good thing? Might it move people into shallower consumption/entertainment based pursuits (such as the majority of the populations of all the richer western societies are like now).

With less civilisation there would be more casual opportunity for people to self-reflect, discomfort caused by conflict would force them to become more questioning, less tied to the herd.

Like everything though it is a matter of degree. Should there be significantly less or more civilisation then the affects of humans mind will be different. For instance, a major breakdown of civilisation could result in the loss or non-availability of the works of philosophers to as many people as is now the case, resulting in an overall loss of wisdom. A major breakthrough in altering/combating the primitive or non-civilised behaviour of vast populations could lead to mental stagnation, to the last man.

[Matt Gregory]

I think the "herd" mentality sees it as taboo to question the essence of basic behaviours and cultural formations. It stems from pride in racial heritage, the hubris of inherited cultures as being somehow the best way, and also a sense of humility about it all, the idea that "my" ancestors did it this way, so it is the best/only way. there is no capacity to imagine drastic alternatives, the mind would reject the idea outright as a spit in the face of my "blood" and background etc, all these kind of things which humans are unfortunately so prone to. Just look at how people view their friends as "amazing people" and so on, there is no objectivity involved, it's just an emotional attachment to what is in their sphere of existence.

Yeah...

I think the problem for the activist lies in mounting a direct conceptual attack on something that people are too weak to overcome. By why are they too weak? What strength could it possibly require to think a little differently for even a moment?

I need to make a little digression.

The self can't exist as a physical entity. That can be easily proven. So, given that, what's left of the self? The self can only be formed out of ideas. And where did these ideas come from? For an individual, they come from the herd. For humanity as a whole, they came from evolution.

If the self is composed only of ideas, then what we perceive as the physical self is nothing more than ideas. So, an attack on the ideas that compose our self is experienced as a physical attack, and it really is a physical attack. Concepts entering our minds can cause our physical behavior to change without any conscious volition on our part, and this physical effect is no different in essence from the effect of a physical cause. And if we could look at a continual catscan or something that could monitor our brains, we would probably see that concepts physically affect it as they enter our minds.

I think what has to happen is that the attack on a person's self has to have a pleasurable effect in order to convince the person to keep attacking himself. I guess humor is the only way to do this--somehow making an indirect attack and turning it into a joke. You would need several indirect attacks to equal the power of one direct attack, but I think it would be a lot more successful. Maybe we should be going to comedy shows instead of studying philosophy. It's kind of hard to try and make a joke, though. Saturday Night Live is proof of that.

I see it as impossible to be indifferent to the herd, since you evolved "from" it. You can never escape it, in a practical sense, you just become a contrast to it. The herd is a set of parameters within which most human behaviour takes place, it isn't the actual members of it, but a set of values and patterns that repeat over and over through generations.

Yeah, I would think that even the wisest person would still act in response to the herd, it would just be a contrary response.

[Matt Gregory]

Being human - being civilized - takes a lot of training.

Maybe it would make us feel too hopeless if we realized that we don't have to stop when we reach the "human" level? Most people, most "civilized" people, go to school, go to college, get a job, and then peter out as far as their personal development goes. I think the typical college student wants to hurry up and get his degree for the express purpose of stopping.

Well, civilization enabled these things. Civilization version 1, to put it in software terms. The question I'm trying to pose is shouldn't we be working towards civilization version 2?

Okay. The obvious questions are, what should that civilization be like, and how should we get there? Can we get there from here? (Hardly new questions.)

No, but they're really very easy to answer. We tend to look at these things from a top-down approach--find the perfect model of civilization and begin working towards it. But that would obviously be a really difficult way of doing it. For one, you would need a totalitarian state. You would need the resources to make the change, etc. And even if you managed to secure all these things chances are the end result would be all fucked up. You would have to tear it down and try it again. "Plan to throw one away" as Fred Brooks said.

I think the way to do it is to take a bottom-up approach. Don't try to create a complete picture of the end goal, just look around the system and find as many undesirable things as you can. Take the smallest one you can find and fix it. This will destabilize it, but if it's small enough, the system will survive the change and eventually become stable again. Repeat. Look around the system again. Don't assume that the things you found earlier will be in the same state as they were before the previous change, because it won't be known how many things that last change truly affected until they're all examined again. The components of any system are all interconnected, but some are more interconnected than others. This is how change must be introduced into a complex system if you want the system to survive.

So, I'm thinking that the attitude towards change is bullshit and should be removed. It seems like it would be a small change to me if everyone adopted a slightly more open-minded attitude towards change, but I don't really know that. I could be trivializing the very glue that holds society together or something. Handshakes, too. I think handshakes are bullshit and that it would be trivial to stop doing it. We don't need to touch each other interact in a civilized manner. You and I have never touched, yet we're having a friendly conversation. But again, it's probably a lot more important than I think it is. It could lead to the collapse of the entire healthcare system for all I know. But let's say we managed to get rid of it and it worked out fine. Now nobody anywhere shakes hands, instead they say "it's good to see you" or something. I think that would be a huge accomplishment, because, although we didn't get rid of the bullshit entirely, we got rid of a little bit of it, and that opens the door for getting rid of more it. We still have these useless wings, but they're smaller now and we have more maneuverability. Soon "it's good to see you" turns into a nod, then it turns into a look in the eye, then it disappears entirely. This wouldn't happen in isolation, though. If this happened I bet a lot of the bullshit related to the handshake would disappear along with it. In the meantime, people would probably quit saying hello to each other. They would just walk up to each other and begin interacting. People would probably drop all kinds of polite, but meaningless talk. It would be like a completely different culture. People would be a lot more patient. Things would happen at a much slower rate. We would have deeper conversations. The quality of art and music and writing would be a lot better. There would be a lot more thinking going on. All of these things would happen because we would have one less value to scatter our minds with.

That's maybe a bit of a chicken/egg question. Evolution and survival are intimately intertwined.

Yeah, you're right.

It gave us power, yeah, and I think that's really what we should be aiming at. What type of power do we really want to get out of civilization? I see civilization as a type of technology. It's a set of ideas that are used to make something manifest in the physical world (better quality of life). It's a tool.

That's a good way to look at it. You can use a tool without being heavily emotionally invested in it.

Yeah, imagine that GN dialog if David and James were framers:

Code: Select all

David Quinn: There is a strong element of sloppiness involved in using a hammer drill that isn't present in the use of 20oz or 28oz framing hammers (although 28oz framing hammers are also pretty sloppy, imo).

James: I was responding to other things for a second, but hold the phone; how in the name of holy living fuck are 28oz framing hammers sloppy??

I don't think this dialog is any more ridiculous than the actual dialog, but the chances of hearing two people have an exchange like the above are about zip compared to the actual one.

Civilization is inherently conservative. If something "works" (allows the civilization to continue), then there is a natural resistance to changing it, even if another way might work better. There is always a risk, a cost, involved in change. The reason(s) something "works" might not be obvious.

Civilizations evolve, like species do. Evolution generally works through small changes over time.

Yeah, I already went off on a (probably redundant) tangent about this. Just think of it as me taking out the trash :-)

No one wants to take a chance in order to develop it because they are too afraid that doing so would be weakening that defense, and I think it's a stifling attitude.

Things change all the time - just at a rate that can seem very slow from the perspective of an individual. But if you look back 30 years, or 100 years, you can see that there have been large changes.

Compare that to, say, ancient Egypt, where you can see art styles that lasted for hundreds of years.

Yeah, I was thinking more of the attitude towards change rather than making any particular change. Well, the change would be the change of attitude. But, like I said earlier, maybe this conservative attitude is something that's a critical element in preventing the collapse of civilization. You've been saying the same thing. I never thought that a change of any size could sweep through society overnight. Even a small change in a single individual takes time, usually.

Civilization is obviously complex with an uncountable number of aspects, but I think it's important to re-evaluate each of these aspects, even the trivial ones. A small burden on development is still a burden, so why keep it around if it gives us no benefit?

That's how evolution works. A species becomes too heavy to fly, but it takes a very long time for the wings to become smaller. In the meantime, another use for wings may be found. That's not really a very good example, but evolution re-purposes things all the time.

You seem to be implying that we can sit here doing whatever we want and evolution will take place behind the scenes, independently of us even. Our thoughts are evolution, though. What we think today is what we are evolving to think in the future. How could it not be like that?

Why shake hands to prove that you're not carrying a weapon when no one in the culture you're living in carries around a drawn weapon? I mean, for pete's sake, if we're bent on doing rituals we could at least come up with a more appropriate ritual or something! We can't even manage to do that.

That may be where the custom originated, and that particular reason is obsolete. But shaking hands still has a purpose. It's part of the protocols that go along with civilization. For instance, there are different ways to shake hands, relating to different subcultures. It's part of establishing an identity.

But what's an "identity" and what good is it? Is it true or useful or is bullshit?

It may have other reasons as well. In the U.S., at least, physical touching is very limited. Between men, a handshake might be all the physical contact they ever have.

Yeah, it might, but if those reasons are only there to prop up some bullshit, then I think we should think about getting rid of it. Even if we got everyone to think "man, this handshake is bullshit" as they were doing it, I think that would be progress.

But why must hoping to civilize the hard-to-civilize involve suppressing those who can go beyond our current version of civilization and lead its development?

That's a damn good question.

A society can only change at a certain rate. A society is not a single, homogenous entity. It is a large collection of individuals - or really, it is the knowledge, ideas, opinions, language, technology, and so on that those individuals have. There can only be a certain amount of variation from the norm for an individual to still be in that group - just like, genetically, an individual can only have a certain amount of variance from the group and still be reproductively viable within that group.

True, but how big of a change is one thought? If the change of changing our attitude towards change is too big (no brain twister intended), then how about changing our attitude towards handshakes? Just the thought of "this is bullshit" every time someone gives a handshake?

It is quite possible, though, to not care about your status in the herd, to not be obsessed with what other people think of you - to let go of the ego - to not be emotionally attached to the herd.

So would such a person shake someone's hand if it was offered to him or not?

I can't claim to be completely free of emotional attachments, so I can only tell you what I do. I shake people's hand when it is socially appropriate. It doesn't mean anything to me, but obviously some people expect it.

You mean if you stuck your hand out to shake and the person ignored it, it would have no impact on you? You wouldn't even once wonder why he didn't shake it?

It may be a symptom of a much larger problem, but it's just a symptom. Fighting it doesn't fight the real problem, so it's pretty pointless.

Maybe this is the real contentious point in this conversation. I agree it's a symptom of a larger problem, but I think it creates problems of it's own. If you're done camping and the tent is staked down, it's going to be pretty tough to move the tent without pulling out the stakes first. That's how I look at the problem of trivial bullshit behaviors. They're stakes that prevent the tent of free thought from moving.

[Leyla Shen]

But is this indifference to the herd, or indifference within the herd? There's a big difference!

Outside of moving to a secluded island all by yourself -- or suicide (and I reckon I could argue that suicide was a very herdly activity), just exactly how can you be entirely separate and exterior to the herd, Matt?

Dave Toast once asked me a challenging question. I still think about it. I was rambling on about how differentiation was the mark of reason and identification the mark of instinct and he asked: “What’s the difference?”

The difference is the difference. If you are indifferent, there is no difference -- does that make you the same?

Total indifference would be a complete lack of acknowledgement of the existence of the herd, but then what is the herd? Is it the actual people of the herd or is it that the concept of the herd is no longer considered? It seems totally impractical either way.

If the herd exists and indifference is defined as a lack of acknowledgment of that existence, surely one -- by default -- is postulating such a condition as quite deluded, indeed. How is that any different to a lack of acknowledgment of A=A? You have defined, philosophically, the herd as “all needy and insecure behaviour.” What could possibly be missing that causes you to feel insecure with that definition -- that causes you to raise such questions? I don’t get it.

Oh, I forgot. We already have those, only the voice of the Leonard Nimoy soundalike is missing.

Indeed. Though I much prefer David Attenborough as a wildlife narrator.

[Matt Gregory]

Outside of moving to a secluded island all by yourself -- or suicide (and I reckon I could argue that suicide was a very herdly activity), just exactly how can you be entirely separate and exterior to the herd, Matt?

You could be emotionally outside of it, like someone with autism. You wouldn't share their emotions, so in effect you would be in a different world outside of them.

Dave Toast once asked me a challenging question. I still think about it. I was rambling on about how differentiation was the mark of reason and identification the mark of instinct and he asked: “What’s the difference?”

The difference is the difference. If you are indifferent, there is no difference -- does that make you the same?

I'm not sure I know what you mean. He was asking you what the difference is between differentiation and identification, no?

Total indifference would be a complete lack of acknowledgement of the existence of the herd, but then what is the herd? Is it the actual people of the herd or is it that the concept of the herd is no longer considered? It seems totally impractical either way.

If the herd exists and indifference is defined as a lack of acknowledgment of that existence, surely one -- by default -- is postulating such a condition as quite deluded, indeed. How is that any different to a lack of acknowledgment of A=A? You have defined, philosophically, the herd as “all needy and insecure behaviour.” What could possibly be missing that causes you to feel insecure with that definition -- that causes you to raise such questions? I don’t get it.

Well, I guess it wouldn't be a complete lack of acknowledgement, but what you wouldn't acknowledge is the validity of the herd mentality, so you wouldn't treat herd members as herd, you would treat them as individuals and suffer the consequences of that. That's what seems impractical to me if it were taken to extremes.

[Leyla Shen]

You could be emotionally outside of it, like someone with autism. You wouldn't share their emotions, so in effect you would be in a different world outside of them.

Interesting qualifier: “in effect.” I think it would be worth considering the full impact of it.

Is this an example of what you would consider to be an indifference to the herd? If not, can you provide one, or elaborate further on the idea?

I'm not sure I know what you mean. He was asking you what the difference is between differentiation and identification, no?

Yes, that’s correct.

Well, I guess it wouldn't be a complete lack of acknowledgement, but what you wouldn't acknowledge is the validity of the herd mentality, so you wouldn't treat herd members as herd, you would treat them as individuals and suffer the consequences of that. That's what seems impractical to me if it were taken to extremes.

It is incredibly impractical.

For instance, I was recently called into a meeting on the second level of the cave. The Grand Hyena was not present (he never is when it comes to me -- not after the first time), but had sent two female members to do his bidding. I think he thinks females relate better to females -- especially since I like to hold my ground. Anyway, you see, my behaviour has been incredibly unpack-like. Man, I had been so excited to be a hyena. Easy street. I had the skills and competence -- piece of cake. And now here I was, listening to how I had fallen from the Grand’s grace. Woe be unto me for thinking. Because it’s all there in the agreement, ya know; signed, sealed and delivered. “You agree to be a member of the brood and to function as such as and when required, even if the manner in which we expect you to do so is totally inefficient and requires that you therefore work completely excessive, unpaid overtime ‘from time to time’ as and when deemed necessary by ‘us‘. You will not fall out of line.” Of course, in the West, things are not so simple and direct. The Law has its own language and to understand it -- why, you simply pay them to explain what they’ve written in the first place. When I was given this contract, I sent it back -- edited. Of course, I knew what I was in for so it was signed nonetheless. (I reckon that evened the playing ground. In editing this thing, I also gave them a very good clue.) I mean, who couldn’t know what they were in for? A clause that exists solely as a means to point to the next clause which, you guessed it, points to another thirty. And, finally, 300 pages later, you discover that you are agreeing to nothing but being owned in the most complete way. Just gorgeous. That’s when you know.

Extremes.

It won’t be long. Back to the lion‘s den for me, I‘m afraid. I mean, hyenas are stupid -- but they ain’t that stupid.

[sevens]

Hey, there's too much smoke in this thread. Learn your characters - Know the herd - Love (not 'love') each individual.

[Leyla Shen]

Might I suggest then, Shakespeare, that you get rid of that short, fat cigar and open a window.

[sevens]

Do your claws retract, or have they been set to auto pilot? - by cows, and hyenas? My hubris was a danga-lin' - but, you still shouldn't fear open windows, or lukewarm baths.

Fuck smoking. Wanna build a fire?

[Leyla Shen]

They were not claws, kitten, they were teeth; and I was playing with you. Did you not feel the warmth of my breath -- taste the scent of freshly sweet blood on my tongue? Did you not hear the deep, hypnotic rumble welling in my throat?

Perhaps you were already mine.

I have already feasted. Your cities are laden with rotting carcasses, and your fires folly to those borne by the inferno.

[Matt Gregory]

Is this an example of what you would consider to be an indifference to the herd?

Yes.

I'm not sure I know what you mean. He was asking you what the difference is between differentiation and identification, no?

Yes, that’s correct.

And what is the difference again?

[sevens]

My Dear Leyla,

I know how you long for 'kings' on their knees, but my name is not Eric. Oh, sweet Leyla. My reverberations can surely sooth, and wail. You are still a feline though, through and through. Your face changes too easily, and your purrs echo a hollow heart. But, even in hollow hearts blood still drips - but this blood is poison, to poetic kings. If you wish to play with mice, then so be it. But, if your desire should ripen: men on thrones suck, and pluck, at sweet milk - not tainted cheese.

You really should check out Sam Beam. His new EP is entitled, 'Woman King.'

[Leyla Shen]

I hope to get back to you this evening, Matt & more-than-one-seven. (You, too, TTWU. Yes, I love Shrek -- especially when he's spelled correctly. I have both films on DVD.)

[sevens]

Leyla,

I can't wait to hear your rebuttal.

[TryingToWakeUp]

Leyla, yeah my spelling sucks...I knew you loved Shrek :)

[sevens]

Run, TTWU!

Flee to brighter lands! Meadows where you can wake to the smell of coffee and sunshine! You're being used as a prop! And by a damn good puppeteer!

Learn with each step to new beds!

Yo!

[TryingToWakeUp]

I am just wondering. Sevens, are you a female?

[sevens]

TTWU,

No. But, I'm awake.

Take it light.