Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Biophelia Hypothesis: Non-Reductionist Evolutionary Psychology
    #21944683 - 07/14/15 11:51 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

First:

"You can't teach a monkey to fear a flower: (source)"

Quote:


Here is a little experiment you can try, using a few common objects such as video recorders, snakes and baby monkeys (make sure the monkeys were raised in captivity). First, show your monkeys a snake: never having seen one before, they are unlikely to be worried. From this, we can conclude that fear of snakes is not, for monkeys, innate.

Next, show your monkeys another monkey being terrified by a snake (it doesn't matter if it is only observed on video): they will instantly start the screaming and smacking of lips that are their way of expressing terror, and the reaction will be repeated on any subsequent encounters with snakes. From this, we conclude that fear of snakes can be learned.

Finally, show your monkeys another monkey being terrified by something harmless - a flower, say (you will almost certainly have to use a doctored video): your monkeys will not be remotely impressed, and on future encounters with flowers will betray no interest or alarm. From this we conclude that while fear of snakes can be learned, other sorts of fear can't. Monkeys may not have an innate fear of snakes; but they do have an innate predisposition, a slot in their heads where "fear of snakes" will fit.




There is the suggested extension with symbolic propensities in Human Beings. 

E.O Wilson argues thusly for the "Biophelia Hypothesis":

Quote:



The snake and the serpent, flesh-and-blood reptile and demonic dream image, reveal the complexity of our relation to nature and the fascination and beauty inherent in all forms of organisms. Even the deadliest and most repugnant creatures bring an endowment of magic to the human mind. Human beings have an innate fear of snakes, or more precisely, they have an innate propensity to learn such fear quickly and easily after the age of five. The images they build out of this peculiar mental set are both powerful and ambivalent, ranging from terror-stricken flight to the experience of power and male sexuality. As a consequence the serpent has become an important part of cultures around the world.

Perhaps the most bizarre of the biophilic traits is awe and veneration of the serpent.... In all cultures the serpents are prone to be mysterically transfigured.

The Hopi know Palulukon, the water serpent, a benevolent but frightening godlike being.
The Kwakiutl fear the sisiutl, a kind of three-headed serpent with both human and reptile faces, whose appearance in dreams presages insanity or death.

The Sharanahua of Peru summon retile spirits by taking hallucinogenic drugs and stroking the severed tongues over their faces. The are rewarded with dreams of brightly colored boas, venemous snakes, and lakes teeming with caimans and anacondas.

The mind is primed to react emotionally to the sight of snakes, not just to fear them but to be aroused and absorbed in their details, to weave stories about them.
Every continent except Antarctica has poisonous snakes.

In hymns of Atharva Veda:

With my eye do I slay thy eye, with poison do I slay thy poison. O Serpent, die, do not live; back upon thee shall thy poison turn.

Two serpents entwine the Caduceus, which was first the winged staff of Mercury as messenger of the gods, then the safe-conduct pass of ambassadors and heralds, and finally the universal emblem of the medical profession.




Wikipedia on biophelia (I am looking for a copy of this book)

Quote:

The biophilia hypothesis suggests that there is an instinctive bond between human beings and other living systems. Edward O. Wilson introduced and popularized the hypothesis in his book, Biophilia (1984). He defines biophilia as "the urge to affiliate with other forms of life".

The term "biophilia" literally means "love of life or living systems." It was first used by Erich Fromm to describe a psychological orientation of being attracted to all that is alive and vital. Wilson uses the term in the same sense when he suggests that biophilia describes "the connections that human beings subconsciously seek with the rest of life.”

He proposed the possibility that the deep affiliations humans have with other life forms and nature as a whole are rooted in our biology. Unlike phobias, which are the aversions and fears that people have of things in the natural world, philias are the attractions and positive feelings that people have toward organisms, species, habitats, processes and objects in their natural surroundings. Although named by Fromm, the concept of biophillia has been proposed and defined many times over. Aristotle was one of the many to put forward a concept that could be summarized as "love of life". Diving into the term phillia, or friendship, Aristotle evokes the idea of reciprocity and how friendships are beneficial to both parties in more than just one way, but especially in the way of happiness.

In the book Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations edited by Peter Kahn and Stephen Kellert, the importance of animals, especially those with which a child can develop a nurturing relationship, is emphasised particularly for early and middle childhood. Chapter 7 of the same book reports on the help that animals can provide to children with autistic-spectrum disorders.

Product of biological evolution:
Human preferences toward things in nature, while refined through experience and culture, are hypothetically the product of biological evolution. For example, adult mammals (especially humans) are generally attracted to baby mammal faces and find them appealing across species. The large eyes and small features of any young mammal face are far more appealing than those of the mature adults. The biophilia hypothesis suggests that the positive emotional response that adult mammals have toward baby mammals across species helps increase the survival rates of all mammals.

Similarly, the hypothesis helps explain why ordinary people care for and sometimes risk their lives to save domestic and wild animals, and keep plants and flowers in and around their homes. In other words, our natural love for life helps sustain life.

Very often, flowers also indicate potential for food later. Most fruits start their development as flowers. For our ancestors, it was crucial to spot, detect and remember the plants that would later provide nutrition.

Development:
The hypothesis has since been developed as part of theories of evolutionary psychology in the book The Biophilia Hypothesis edited by Stephen R. Kellert and Edward O. Wilson[7] and by Lynn Margulis. Also, Stephen Kellert's work seeks to determine common human responses to perceptions of, and ideas about, plants and animals, and to explain them in terms of the conditions of human evolution.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Biophelia Hypothesis: Non-Reductionist Evolutionary Psychology [Re: Kurt]
    #21944968 - 07/15/15 01:26 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

This thread could raise the following question: what is the hypothetical value of symbolic life? How does it float like a compass?

Here is the story of an "affirmative" life, from another perspective, told as the life of Zarathustra, by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche:

Quote:


WHEN Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the lake
of his home, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his
spirit and his solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it. But at last his heart changed,- and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun, and spake thus unto it:

Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those
for whom thou shinest! For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent. But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow, and blessed thee for it.

Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too
much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it. I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches. Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether-world, thou exuberant star!

Like thee must I go down, as men say, to whom I shall descend. Bless me, then, thou tranquil eye, that canst behold even the
greatest happiness without envy! Bless the cup that is about to overflow, that the water may flow golden out of it, and carry everywhere the reflection of thy bliss! Lo! This cup is again going to empty itself, and Zarathustra is again going to be a man. Thus began Zarathustra's down-going.

                            2.

  Zarathustra went down the mountain alone, no one meeting him. When
he entered the forest, however, there suddenly stood before him an old man, who had left his holy cot to seek roots. And thus spake the old man to Zarathustra:"No stranger to me is this wanderer: many years ago passed he by. Zarathustra he was called; but he hath altered. Then thou carriedst thine ashes into the mountains: wilt thou now carry thy fire into the valleys? Fearest thou not the incendiary's doom? Yea, I recognize Zarathustra. Pure is his eye, and no loathing lurketh about his mouth. Goeth he not along like a dancer? Altered is Zarathustra; a child hath Zarathustra become; an awakened one is Zarathustra: what wilt thou do in the land of the sleepers? As in the sea hast thou lived in solitude, and it hath borne thee up. Alas, wilt thou now go ashore? Alas, wilt thou again drag thy body thyself?"

Zarathustra answered: "I love mankind." "Why," said the saint, "did I go into the forest and the desert? Was it not because I loved men far too well? Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me." Zarathustra answered: "What spake I of love! I am bringing gifts
unto men." "Give them nothing," said the saint. "Take rather part of their load, and carry it along with them- that will be most agreeable unto them: if only it be agreeable unto thee! If, however, thou wilt give unto them, give them no more than an alms, and let them also beg for it!"

"No," replied Zarathustra, "I give no alms. I am not poor enough for
that." The saint laughed at Zarathustra, and spake thus: "Then see to it that they accept thy treasures! They are distrustful of anchorites, and do not believe that we come with gifts. The fall of our footsteps ringeth too hollow through their streets. And just as at night, when they are in bed and hear a man abroad long before sunrise, so they ask themselves concerning us: Where goeth the thief?

Go not to men, but stay in the forest! Go rather to the animals! Why
not be like me- a bear amongst bears, a bird amongst birds?" "And what doeth the saint in the forest?" asked Zarathustra. The saint answered: "I make hymns and sing them; and in making hymns I laugh and weep and mumble: thus do I praise God. With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling do I praise the God who is my God. But what dost thou bring us as a gift?" When Zarathustra had heard these words, he bowed to the saint and said: "What should I have to give thee! Let me rather hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee!"- And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing like schoolboys. When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: "Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that God is dead!"

                            3.

  When Zarathustra arrived at the nearest town which adjoineth the
forest, he found many people assembled in the market-place; for it had been announced that a rope-dancer would give a performance. And
Zarathustra spake thus unto the people: I teach you the Superman. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man? All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man? What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.

Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is
still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes. Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I bid you become phantoms or plants?

Lo, I teach you the Superman! The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The superman shall he the meaning of the earth! I conjure you, my brethren, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak unto you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them! Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and therewith also those blasphemers. To blaspheme the earth is now the dreadfulest sin, and to rate the heart of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth!

Once the soul looked contemptuously on the body, and then that
contempt was the supreme thing:- the soul wished the body meagre,
ghastly, and famished. Thus it thought to escape from the body and the earth. Oh, that soul was itself meagre, ghastly, and famished; and cruelty was the delight of that soul!

But ye, also, my brethren, tell me: What doth your body say about
your soul? Is your soul not poverty and pollution and wretched
self-complacency? Verily, a polluted stream is man. One must be a sea, to receive a polluted stream without becoming impure. Lo, I teach you the Superman: he is that sea; in him can your
great contempt be submerged.

What is the greatest thing ye can experience? It is the hour of
great contempt. The hour in which even your happiness becometh
loathsome unto you, and so also your reason and virtue. The hour when ye say: "What good is my happiness! It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency. But my happiness should justify existence itself!" The hour when ye say: "What good is my reason! Doth it long for knowledge as the lion for his food? It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency!" The hour when ye say: "What good is my virtue! As yet it hath not made me passionate. How weary I am of my good and my bad! It is all poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency! The hour when ye say: "What good is my justice! I do not see that I am fervour and fuel. The just, however, are fervour and fuel!" The hour when we say: "What good is my pity! Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loveth man? But my pity is not a
crucifixion." Have ye ever spoken thus? Have ye ever cried thus? Ah! would that I had heard you crying thus!

It is not your sin- it is your self-satisfaction that crieth unto
heaven; your very sparingness in sin crieth unto heaven! Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which ye should be inoculated? Lo, I teach you the Superman: he is that lightning, he is that frenzy!- When Zarathustra had thus spoken, one of the people called out: "We have now heard enough of the rope-dancer; it is time now for us to see him!" And all the people laughed at Zarathustra. But the rope-dancer, who thought the words applied to him, began his performance.

                            4.

  Zarathustra, however, looked at the people and wondered. Then he
spake thus: Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman- a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going.

I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for
they are the over-goers. I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore. I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.

I love him who liveth in order to know, and seeketh to know in order
that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeketh he his own
down-going. I love him who laboureth and inventeth, that he may build the house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and
plant: for thus seeketh he his own down-going. I love him who loveth his virtue: for virtue is the will to down-going, and an arrow of longing. I love him who reserveth no share of spirit for himself, but wanteth to be wholly the spirit of his virtue: thus walketh he as spirit over the bridge. I love him who maketh his virtue his inclination and destiny: thus, for the sake of his virtue, he is willing to live on, or live no more.

I love him who desireth not too many virtues. One virtue is more
of a virtue than two, because it is more of a knot for one's destiny
to cling to. I love him whose soul is lavish, who wanteth no thanks and doth not give back: for he always bestoweth, and desireth not to keep for himself.

I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour, and
who then asketh: "Am I a dishonest player?"- for he is willing to
succumb. I love him who scattereth golden words in advance of his deeds, and always doeth more than he promiseth: for he seeketh his own down-going. I love him who justifieth the future ones, and redeemeth the past ones: for he is willing to succumb through the present ones. I love him who chasteneth his God, because he loveth his God: for he must succumb through the wrath of his God. I love him whose soul is deep even in the wounding, and may succumb through a small matter: thus goeth he willingly over the bridge. I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgetteth himself, and
all things are in him: thus all things become his down-going. I love him who is of a free spirit and a free heart: thus is his
head only the bowels of his heart; his heart, however, causeth his
down-going.

I love all who are like heavy drops falling one by one out of the
dark cloud that lowereth over man: they herald the coming of the
lightning, and succumb as heralds. Lo, I am a herald of the lightning, and a heavy drop out of the cloud: the lightning, however, is the Superman.-

                            5.

When Zarathustra had spoken these words, he again looked at the
people, and was silent. "There they stand," said he to his heart;
"there they laugh: they understand me not; I am not the mouth for
these ears. Must one first batter their ears, that they may learn to hear with their eyes? Must one clatter like kettledrums and penitential preachers? Or do they only believe the stammerer? They have something whereof they are proud. What do they call it, that which maketh them proud? Culture, they call it; it distinguisheth
them from the goatherds. They dislike, therefore, to hear of 'contempt' of themselves. So I will appeal to their pride. I will speak unto them of the most contemptible thing: that,
however, is the last man!"

And thus spake Zarathustra unto the people: It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the germ of his highest hope.
Still is his soil rich enough for it. But that soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow thereon. Alas! there cometh the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man- and the string of his bow will have unlearned to whizz I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you. Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man,
who can no longer despise himself.

Lo! I show you the last man. "What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?"- so asketh the last man and blinketh. The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last
man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest. "We have discovered happiness"- say the last men, and blink thereby. They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.

Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk
warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men! A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death. One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one. One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome. No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wanteth the same; everyone is
equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the
madhouse.

"Formerly all the world was insane,"- say the subtlest of them,
and blink thereby. They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled- otherwise it spoileth their stomachs. They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health. "We have discovered happiness,"- say the last men, and blink thereby.- And here ended the first discourse of Zarathustra, which is also called "The Prologue", for at this point the shouting and mirth of the multitude interrupted him. "Give us this last man, O Zarathustra,"- they called out- "make us into these last men! Then will we make thee a present of the Superman!" And all the people exulted and smacked their lips. Zarathustra, however, turned sad, and said to his heart: "They understand me not: I am not the mouth for these ears. Too long, perhaps, have I lived in the mountains; too much have I hearkened unto the brooks and trees: now do I speak unto them as unto the goatherds. Calm is my soul, and clear, like the mountains in the morning. But they think me cold, and a mocker with terrible jests.
And now do they look at me and laugh: and while they laugh they hate
me too. There is ice in their laughter."

                            6.

Then, however, something happened which made every mouth mute and
every eye fixed. In the meantime, of course, the rope-dancer had
commenced his performance: he had come out at a little door, and was
going along the rope which was stretched between two towers, so that
it hung above the market-place and the people. When he was just midway across, the little door opened once more, and a gaudily-dressed fellow like a buffoon sprang out, and went rapidly after the first one. "Go on, halt-foot," cried his frightful voice, "go on, lazy-bones, interloper, sallow-face!- lest I tickle thee with my heel! What dost thou here between the towers? In the tower is the place for thee, thou shouldst be locked up; to one better than thyself thou blockest the way!"- And with every word he came nearer and nearer the first one. When, however, he was but a step behind, there happened the frightful thing which made every mouth mute and every eye fixed- he uttered a yell like a devil, and jumped over the other who was in his way. The latter, however, when he thus saw his rival triumph, lost at the same time his head and his footing on the rope; he threw his pole away, and shot downward faster than it, like an eddy of arms and legs, into the depth. The market-place and the people were like the sea when the storm cometh on: they all flew apart and in disorder, especially where the body was about to fall.

Zarathustra, however, remained standing, and just beside him fell
the body, badly injured and disfigured, but not yet dead. After a
while consciousness returned to the shattered man, and he saw
Zarathustra kneeling beside him. "What art thou doing there?" said
he at last, "I knew long ago that the devil would trip me up. Now he
draggeth me to hell: wilt thou prevent him?" "On mine honour, my friend," answered Zarathustra, "there is nothing of all that whereof thou speakest: there is no devil and no hell. Thy soul will be dead even sooner than thy body; fear, therefore, nothing any more!" The man looked up distrustfully. "If thou speakest the truth,"
said he, "I lose nothing when I lose my life. I am not much more
than an animal which hath been taught to dance by blows and scanty
fare." "Not at all," said Zarathustra, "thou hast made danger thy
calling; therein there is nothing contemptible. Now thou perishest
by thy calling: therefore will I bury thee with mine own hands." When Zarathustra had said this the dying one did not reply further; but he moved his hand as if he sought the hand of Zarathustra in gratitude.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Biophelia Hypothesis: Non-Reductionist Evolutionary Psychology [Re: Kurt]
    #21944991 - 07/15/15 01:50 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Hopefully this might raise further exploration into the multi-dimensioned discourses of human sciences.

Quote:

Stephen Jay Gould has had a long-running public feud with E. O. Wilson (Author of Biophelia) and other evolutionary biologists concerning the disciplines of human sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, both of which Gould and Lewontin opposed, but which Richard Dawkins, Maynard Smith, Daniel Dennett, and Steven Pinker advocated.[74] These debates reached their climax in the 1970s, and included strong opposition from groups like the Sociobiology Study Group and Science for the People.[75] Pinker accuses Gould, Lewontin, and other opponents of evolutionary psychology of being "radical scientists", whose stance on human nature is influenced by politics rather than science. Gould stated that he made "no attribution of motive in Wilson's or anyone else's case" but cautioned that all human beings are influenced, especially unconsciously, by our personal expectations and biases. He wrote:

"I grew up in a family with a tradition of participation in campaigns for social justice, and I was active, as a student, in the civil rights movement at a time of great excitement and success in the early 1960s. Scholars are often wary of citing such commitments. … [but] it is dangerous for a scholar even to imagine that he might attain complete neutrality, for then one stops being vigilant about personal preferences and their influences—and then one truly falls victim to the dictates of prejudice. Objectivity must be operationally defined as fair treatment of data, not absence of preference.[77]




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Biophelia Hypothesis: Non-Reductionist Evolutionary Psychology [Re: Kurt]
    #21947715 - 07/15/15 02:43 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

From The Philosopher and the Wolf by Mark Rowlands:

Quote:

The Clearing

This is also a book about what it means to be human - not as a biological entity but as a creature that can do things no other creatures can. In the stories we tell about ourselves, our uniqueness is a common refrain. According to some, this lies in our ability to create civilization, and so protect ourselves from nature, red in tooth and claw. Others point to the fact that we are the only creatures that can understand the difference between good and evil, and therefore are the only creatures truly cable of being good or evil. Some say we are unique because we have reason; we are rational animals alone in a world of irrational brutes. Others think it is our use of language that decisively separates us from dumb animals. Some say we are unique because we alone are capable of free will and action. Others think our uniqueness lies in the fact that we alone are capable of love. Some say that we alone are capable of understanding the nature and basis of true happiness. Others think we are unique because we alone can understand that we are going to die.

I don't believe any of these stories as accounts of a critical gulf between us and other creatures. Some of the things we think they can't do, they can. And some of the things we think we can do, we can't. As for the rest, well it's mostly a matter of degree rather than kind. Instead, our uniqueness lies simply in the fact that we tell these stories - and what's more, we can actually get ourselves to believe them. If I wanted a one-sentence definition of human beings, this would do: humans are the animals that believe the stories they tell about themselves. Humans are credulous animals.

In these dark times, it does not need emphasizing that the stories we tell about ourselves can be the biggest source of division between one human and another. From credulity, there is often but a short step to hostility. However, I am concerned with the stories we tell to distinguish ourselves not from each other but from other animals: the stories we tell about what makes us human. Each story has what we might call a dark side; it casts a shadow. That shadow is to be found behind what the story says; here you will find what the story shows. And this is likely to be dark in at least two ways. First of all, what the story shows is often a deeply unflattering, even disturbing facet of human nature. Second, what the story shows is often difficult to see. The two senses are not unconnected. We humans have a pronounced facility for passing over the aspects of ourselves we find distasteful. And this extends to the stories we tell to explain ourselves to ourselves.

The wolf is, of course, the traditional, if unfairly selected representative of the dark side of humanity. This is in many ways ironic - not least etymologically. The Greek word for wolf is lukos, which is so close to the word for light, luekos, that the two were often associated. It may be that this association was simply the result of mistakes in translation, or it may be that there was a deeper etymological connection between the two words. But for whatever reason Apollo was regarded as both the god of the sun and god of wolves. And in this book it is the connection between the wolf and the light that is important. Think of the wolf as the clearing in the forest. In the bowels of the forest, it may be too dark to see the trees. The clearing is the place that allows what was hidden to be uncovered. The wolf, I shall try to show, is the clearing in the human soul. The wolf uncovers what is hidden in the stories we tell about ourselves - what those stories show but do not say.

...As I am using the word, the 'soul' of human beings is revealed in the stories they tell about themselves: stories about why they are unique; stories we humans can actually get ourselves to believe, in spite of all the evidence against them. These, I am going to argue, are stories told by apes: they have a structure, theme and content that is recognizably simian.

I am, here, using the ape as a metaphor for a tendency that exists to a greater or lesser extent, in all of us. In this sense, some humans are more apes than others. Indeed, some apes are more apes than others. The 'ape' is the tendency to understand the world in instrumental terms: the value of everything is a function of what it can do for the ape. The ape is the tendency to see life as a process of gauging probabilities and computing possibilities, and using the results of these computations in its favor. It is the tendency to see the world as a collection of resources; things to be used for its purposes. The ape applies this principle to other apes as much as or even more than, to the rest of the natural world. The ape is a tendency to have not friends, but allies. The ape does not see its fellow apes; it watches them. And all the while it waits for the opportunity to take advantage. To be alive , for the ape, is to be waiting to strike. The apes is the tendency to base relationships with others on a single principle, invariant an unyielding: what can you do for me, and how much will it cost me to get you to do it? Inevitably, this understanding of other apes will turn back on itself, infecting and informing the ape's view of itself. And so it thinks of its happiness as something that can be measured, weighed, quantified and calculated. It thinks of love in the same way. The ape is the tendency to think that the most important things in life are a matter of cost-benefit analysis.

This, I should reiterate, is a metaphor that I use to describe a human tendency. We all know people like this. We meet them at work and at play; we have sat across conference tables and restaurant tables from them. But these people are just exaggerations of the basic human type. Most of us, I suspect, are more like it than we realize or would care to admit. But why do I describe this tendency as simian?

Humans are not the only sorts of apes that can suffer and enjoy the gamut of human emotions. As we shall see, other apes can feel love; they can feel grief so intense that they die from it. They can have friends, and not just allies. Nevertheless, this tendency is simian in the sense that it is made possible by apes; more precisely, by a certain sort of cognitive development that took place in the apes and, as far as we know, no other animal. The tendency to see the world and those in it in cost-benefit terms; to think of one's life, and the important things that happen in it, as things that can be quantified and calculated: this tendency is possible only because there are apes. And of all the apes, this tendency receives it's most complete expression in us. But there is also a part of our soul that existed long before we became apes - before this tendency could catch us in its grip and this is hidden in the stories we tell about ourselves. It is hidden, but it can be uncovered.

Evolution works by gradual accretion. In evolution, there is no tabula rasa no clean slate: it can work only with what it i s given and never go back to the drawing board. Thus, to use the stock example; the grotesquely twisted features of the flat fish - one of whose eyes has in essence been pulled around the other side - are evidence that the evolutionary pressures that led a fish to specialize in lying on the sea bed were pressures acting on a fish that had originally developed for other purposes, and, therefore, had eyes located on its lateral, rather than dorsal, surfaces. Similarly in the development of human beings, evolution was forced to work with what it was given. Our brains are essentially historical structures: it is on the foundations of a primitive limbic system - one that we share with our reptilian ancestors - that the mammalian cortex - the particularly brawny version of which is characteristic of human beings - has been built.

I don't mean to suggest that the stories we tell and believe, about ourselves are evolutionary products like the flat fish's eyes or the mammalian brain. However, I do think that they are built in a similar way: through gradual accretion, where new layers of narrative are superimposed on older structures and themes. There is no clean slate for the stories we tall about ourselves. I shall try to show that if we look hard enough, and if we know where and how to look, then in every story told by apes we shall also find a wolf. And the wolf tells us - this is its function in the story - that the values of the ape are crass and worthless. It tells us that what is most important in life is never a matter of calculation. It reminds us that what is of real value cannot be quantified or traded. It reminds us that sometimes we must do what is right though the heavens fall.

We are, all of us I think, more ape than wolf. In many of us, the wolf has been almost completely expunged from the narrative of our lives. But it is at our peril that we allow the wolf to die. In the end the ape's schemes will come to nothing; its cleverness will betray you and its simian luck will run out. Then you will find what is most important in life. And this is not what your schemes and cleverness and luck have brought you; it is what remains when they have deserted you. You are many things. But the most important you is not the one who schemes; it is the one who remains when the scheming fails. The most important you is not the one who delights in your tuning; it is what is left behind when this cunning leaves you for dead. The most important you is not the one who rides your luck, it is the you who remains when that luck has run out. In the end, the ape will always fail you. The most important question you can ask yourself is: when this happens, who is it that will be left behind?

I took a long time, but at last I think I understand why I loved Brenin so much, and miss him so painfully now he has gone. He taught me something that my extended formal education could not: that in some ancient part of my soul there still lived a wolf.





Edited by Kurt (07/15/15 04:18 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 7 minutes, 10 seconds
Re: Biophelia Hypothesis: Non-Reductionist Evolutionary Psychology [Re: Kurt]
    #21971992 - 07/20/15 06:00 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
First:

"You can't teach a monkey to fear a flower: (source)"

Quote:


Here is a little experiment you can try, using a few common objects such as video recorders, snakes and baby monkeys (make sure the monkeys were raised in captivity). First, show your monkeys a snake: never having seen one before, they are unlikely to be worried. From this, we can conclude that fear of snakes is not, for monkeys, innate.

Next, show your monkeys another monkey being terrified by a snake (it doesn't matter if it is only observed on video): they will instantly start the screaming and smacking of lips that are their way of expressing terror, and the reaction will be repeated on any subsequent encounters with snakes. From this, we conclude that fear of snakes can be learned.

Finally, show your monkeys another monkey being terrified by something harmless - a flower, say (you will almost certainly have to use a doctored video): your monkeys will not be remotely impressed, and on future encounters with flowers will betray no interest or alarm. From this we conclude that while fear of snakes can be learned, other sorts of fear can't. Monkeys may not have an innate fear of snakes; but they do have an innate predisposition, a slot in their heads where "fear of snakes" will fit.




There is the suggested extension with symbolic propensities in Human Beings. 

E.O Wilson argues thusly for the "Biophelia Hypothesis":

Quote:



The snake and the serpent, flesh-and-blood reptile and demonic dream image, reveal the complexity of our relation to nature and the fascination and beauty inherent in all forms of organisms. Even the deadliest and most repugnant creatures bring an endowment of magic to the human mind. Human beings have an innate fear of snakes, or more precisely, they have an innate propensity to learn such fear quickly and easily after the age of five. The images they build out of this peculiar mental set are both powerful and ambivalent, ranging from terror-stricken flight to the experience of power and male sexuality. As a consequence the serpent has become an important part of cultures around the world.

Perhaps the most bizarre of the biophilic traits is awe and veneration of the serpent.... In all cultures the serpents are prone to be mysterically transfigured.

The Hopi know Palulukon, the water serpent, a benevolent but frightening godlike being.
The Kwakiutl fear the sisiutl, a kind of three-headed serpent with both human and reptile faces, whose appearance in dreams presages insanity or death.

The Sharanahua of Peru summon retile spirits by taking hallucinogenic drugs and stroking the severed tongues over their faces. The are rewarded with dreams of brightly colored boas, venemous snakes, and lakes teeming with caimans and anacondas.

The mind is primed to react emotionally to the sight of snakes, not just to fear them but to be aroused and absorbed in their details, to weave stories about them.
Every continent except Antarctica has poisonous snakes.

In hymns of Atharva Veda:

With my eye do I slay thy eye, with poison do I slay thy poison. O Serpent, die, do not live; back upon thee shall thy poison turn.

Two serpents entwine the Caduceus, which was first the winged staff of Mercury as messenger of the gods, then the safe-conduct pass of ambassadors and heralds, and finally the universal emblem of the medical profession.




Wikipedia on biophelia (I am looking for a copy of this book)

Quote:

The biophilia hypothesis suggests that there is an instinctive bond between human beings and other living systems. Edward O. Wilson introduced and popularized the hypothesis in his book, Biophilia (1984). He defines biophilia as "the urge to affiliate with other forms of life".

The term "biophilia" literally means "love of life or living systems." It was first used by Erich Fromm to describe a psychological orientation of being attracted to all that is alive and vital. Wilson uses the term in the same sense when he suggests that biophilia describes "the connections that human beings subconsciously seek with the rest of life.”

He proposed the possibility that the deep affiliations humans have with other life forms and nature as a whole are rooted in our biology. Unlike phobias, which are the aversions and fears that people have of things in the natural world, philias are the attractions and positive feelings that people have toward organisms, species, habitats, processes and objects in their natural surroundings. Although named by Fromm, the concept of biophillia has been proposed and defined many times over. Aristotle was one of the many to put forward a concept that could be summarized as "love of life". Diving into the term phillia, or friendship, Aristotle evokes the idea of reciprocity and how friendships are beneficial to both parties in more than just one way, but especially in the way of happiness.

In the book Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations edited by Peter Kahn and Stephen Kellert, the importance of animals, especially those with which a child can develop a nurturing relationship, is emphasised particularly for early and middle childhood. Chapter 7 of the same book reports on the help that animals can provide to children with autistic-spectrum disorders.

Product of biological evolution:
Human preferences toward things in nature, while refined through experience and culture, are hypothetically the product of biological evolution. For example, adult mammals (especially humans) are generally attracted to baby mammal faces and find them appealing across species. The large eyes and small features of any young mammal face are far more appealing than those of the mature adults. The biophilia hypothesis suggests that the positive emotional response that adult mammals have toward baby mammals across species helps increase the survival rates of all mammals.

Similarly, the hypothesis helps explain why ordinary people care for and sometimes risk their lives to save domestic and wild animals, and keep plants and flowers in and around their homes. In other words, our natural love for life helps sustain life.

Very often, flowers also indicate potential for food later. Most fruits start their development as flowers. For our ancestors, it was crucial to spot, detect and remember the plants that would later provide nutrition.

Development:
The hypothesis has since been developed as part of theories of evolutionary psychology in the book The Biophilia Hypothesis edited by Stephen R. Kellert and Edward O. Wilson[7] and by Lynn Margulis. Also, Stephen Kellert's work seeks to determine common human responses to perceptions of, and ideas about, plants and animals, and to explain them in terms of the conditions of human evolution.








Here's an alternative: The monkey was afraid of the snake to begin with but did not know the appropriate fear response. After seeing the appropriate fear response it was able to recreate that response itself. However, it was never afraid of the flower and so fear did not appear as an appropriate response and so was not mimicked.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Biophelia Hypothesis: Non-Reductionist Evolutionary Psychology [Re: Kickle]
    #21973093 - 07/20/15 09:35 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

That is what the experiment suggests only not by the added caveat of what is "appropriate" or "innate".

Are you afraid of snakes? I never got that instilled and always wondered what the big deal was for some people.

The first link is from a book called Nature via Nature by the way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 7 minutes, 10 seconds
Re: Biophelia Hypothesis: Non-Reductionist Evolutionary Psychology [Re: Kurt]
    #21974431 - 07/21/15 06:37 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I'm afraid of them to an extent. Even the poisonless one's I don't tend to enjoy picking up. The boa's are OK for me though. Had a few friends growing up who had snakes as pets. Meh. We also used to grab them at the local river as kids just to explore 'em.

But as an adult if I've got eyes on a snake I tend to feel much safer. The visual is a comfort not a scare IME.


p.s. by appropriate I meant socially appropriate.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Biophelia Hypothesis: Non-Reductionist Evolutionary Psychology [Re: Kickle]
    #21982847 - 07/23/15 12:55 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The experiment suggests a propensity of learning is like a seed which under the right condition germinates. Or otherwise, it doesn't, and there is nothing to say about that.

Keep in mind that there is nothing necessarily normative in nature. For example, is the socially learned fear of snakes evolutionarily based? Yeah. There is clearly a good reason that primates have this suggestibility. But perhaps for some primates, the only thing to fear is fear itself.

To extrapolate, in terms of primate existence: There will be an essential two sidedness to any suggestion or impression of normativity, the case where the pack is favored and leveled to, and the other case, which is in some sense what we make of it.

A primate's learning is an openly contingent possibility, not a generally necessary reflex.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Evolutionary Psychology of Bullying
( 1 2 3 all )
Poid 3,744 46 03/14/10 12:06 AM
by Poid
* Terence McKenna's Hypothesis on Human Evolution
( 1 2 3 all )
alexithymia 2,474 41 01/21/10 06:18 PM
by laserpig
* Psychology/Philosophy basics....
( 1 2 all )
Corrie 2,371 27 08/09/09 04:53 AM
by Middleman
* whens physics and psychology gonna combine learningtofly 501 7 12/15/09 11:47 PM
by Noteworthy
* The Gaia Hypothesis...
( 1 2 all )
AbstractHarmonix 5,328 32 08/31/09 01:19 PM
by Cubers
* The Gaia Hypothesis, evolutionary morality and the next step
( 1 2 3 all )
Moonshoe 7,429 50 10/22/06 04:21 AM
by slaphappy
* Intellegent Design- a 'science' occupying the negative space of evolutionary theory?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 18 19 )
johnm214 16,490 377 06/27/09 07:42 PM
by boygenius
* Does psychology attempt to explain the consciousness? Ayrios 1,749 11 09/23/04 01:02 AM
by DigitalDuality

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
618 topic views. 1 members, 11 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.