Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    I don't buy the premise that brutish men were ever the norm or
    were ever more likely to be successful in surviving. 
    
    Nor do I buy the idea that men need to be remade in order
    to fit into a more well ordered world.
    
    Man dominated the earth because of cleverness, and because
    there was an intellect behing the muscle power. 
    
    Bach and Handel were both gentle, loving, family men capable of
    great tenderness. Brutish men never contributed much to the
    store of knowledge nor to security; that was almost always the
    province of men of reason, insight, and sensitivity. There are
    some exceptions, such as Peter I or Ivan IV of Russia, but even
    their success pales besides that of Fredrick the Great of Prussia,
    a noted flautist and cultivator of the luminaries of the Age of
    Reason, or of the men of the Continnental Congress. 

RE:  .-1

>    Man dominated the earth because of cleverness, and because
>    there was an intellect behing the muscle power. 
    

Do you see this "domination" as a problem as I do?  Seems like all
this domination is getting us into  trouble as a species and a
different, more gentle, and balanced approach may be called for. 

john

    Re: .0
    
    Just because someone is "too" nice, doesn't mean that they are whimps.
    I admit I'm in both the "too" nice and the "too" thin notes but
    I know that I'm strong.  I have wrestled guys that weigh 100 lbs.
    more than me an I have won.  I also feel that it takes not physical
    strength but mental strength to protect, and provide.  I just don't
    agree with the premise in which this note is based.  
    
    Bill

RE:  .4

>    	There is no way to avoid domination.
>    
>    	It's been with the human race since the beginning and will be
>    with us until the end.
    
I have to disagree with you Mike.  The Native Americans are one
example that come to mind.  They lived in a balance with Mother Earth,
acting as her caretakers and not as dominators.

john

    Re: .5
    
    >They lived in a balance with Mother Earth, acting as her caretakers
    >and not as dominators.
    
    Even "caretaker" implies an element of control, of being in charge
    and having some degree of authority or power over that which is
    being cared for.

RE: 0.  I agree.

RE: .1 Not all men were "brutal", but forcefullness in general was a survival
trait.  Perhaps it still is in some ways, but certainly less then in the past.

The problem is that a certain amount of forcefullness is still necessary as
there are still 'unenlightened' people out there. 

Jim.

    And not all Indians were non-violent.  Was it the Cherokees that
    used to raid other Indian tribes, much like we have in modern society
    with regional wars?  The human species is instilled with a certain
    amount of violent tendencies.  The key is to be able to control
    and channel those tendencies for the good of the society as a whole.
    
    Ed..
    

    
    	(This is a mega-ramble, written in the male context. No offense or
    insensitivity toward Women readers is meant.) 
    
    	Brawny, as a necessity for survival, has long ago been replaced
    by cunning I believe. Man's survival as a species depended on the
    fact that he was simply smarter than any other animal. He could easily
    bring down beasts 10 times larger than himself by using his gifts of 
    reason and intelligence - in combination with physical strength.
    
    	Soon man became obsessed with this gift, in trying to find a
    cause/effect reason for *everything*. Some were quite obvious, others
    still a mystery. Through his creative desire, man extrapolated what
    he knew for sure into what he thought was reasonable, in an effort
    to solve these mysteries. Where reality did not obviously show "why"
    something happened, an explanation was *generated* in an effort to
    calm the ever_rationalizing mind. That which makes man "different"
    went into a runaway state; man lost control of his reasoning.
    
	Man's big mistake was this obsession with reason. This may have
    been, whenever it occurred, the very first closing of the human mind.
    The possibility that there actually is no reason is unacceptable
    to a mind obsessed with reasoning all things out. Yet, there are
    plenty of things that happen that defy reason all together. Man
    creates a reason in those cases, to satisfy what he cannot understand.
    
    	Being a social creature, man organized himself into a structure
    called a family or band. This structure, as a whole, faired much
    better than did a single man alone. In order to make it work, a
    set of conditions which define the structure were needed, specifically
    the heirarchy of the structure. Some of these conditions were based
    on hard truth, others, on conjectures and whatever the "currently
    accepted explanations" were.
    
       	So, man creates a structure within which to live, with "rules"
    or defining conditions made up of both actual truths and what
    man "thinks is right". Supplanting what man thinks is right became
    difficult at best, even when it's dead wrong. Leonardo DaVinci is
    quoted to say "...experiments never err, it is only the interpretation
    of them which errs, when a man stubbornly insists on a different result
    from what he has seen with his own eyes" (50 years before Copernicus
    he wrote; "The sun does not move" *That* realization was a biggie!)
    
    	Within any structure defined by agreed-on rules and conditions,
    there will be judgements made. Since man is a obsessively reasoning
    creature, the tendency toward making judgements is also obsessive.
    Since everything must have a cause/effect reason, given a reason
    (whether true or not) man will try to effect a cause. This is why 
    "innocent until proven guilty" is so important, because until recently,
    you'd gladly be seen as the cause of an effect, quite possibly one
    you really couldnt have anything to do with - like this years weather. 
                                 
    	This explains why we are judged sometimes against a currently
    held belief that is simply not true, whether we deserve to be or not.
    With the benefits of social structure also comes it's liabilities;
    one must be accepted to have the other.
    
    	As our culture evolves, man is learning to release himself from
    the shackles of past experiences. i;e; to let go. He's learning
    that shame-based reasoning is a big waste of energy at best and is
    losing this cause for making judgements. He's learning that everything
    cannot always be completely explained; it's been proven that there can
    be problems with no solution even for the greatest rule-based science 
    of them all, Mathematics. He's learning to calm the ramblings of
    his ever rational mind and lose interest in interpretating the actions
    of others. He's glad to trade all the noise, pain and sickness that
    his rationaly judgemental mind has created over the years for a more 
    contented, blissful feeling of connectedness with others and nature.
     
    	Joe Jas  

    re .10  - "...for the good of society as a whole."
    
    By whose definition?  Mine?
    
    re. the Native Americans - I thought they lived more in harmony
    with Nature, as a part of it, not quite as caretakers.
    
    Paula

    I think everyone has missed the central reasoning behind the original
    note.
    
    One has only to look at television, advertising, films, newspapers,
    etc. to realise that the culture is heavily oriented to the
    "muscle-man" and "muscle-woman" syndrome. I've lived all over the
    world, but I can guarantee you that nowhere else is there such a
    high proportion of people "working-out" and engulfing anabolic steroids
    in an effort to comply with the culturally stimulated stereotype.
    
    This must all have an effect on people's mate selection preferences;
    one notes very readily that Europeans are generally of a slighter
    build and have a different set of criteria.
    
    One example: I recently had a conversation with a girl who has been
    travelling the world for the last six months. She is Swiss (from
    Zurich) and made the following comments:
    
    	"I've spent the last 3 months in the USA and have been to every
    	State. I hate the way people interact. People value others for
    	the way they look, not the way they are.
    
    	"People appear to continually talk about how much they own,
    	how much money they have, how much better they are than 
    	anyone else because of their posessions.
    
    	"I haven't met a single person here who was interested in
    	intellectual discussion of current affairs, or any other
    	topic other than themselves or their posessions or what's
    	on television or the movies" 

    Looking in from other cultures, it's really quite clear that American
    origins definitely affected the current societal mores; in fact,
    it's quite blatent.
    
    Ray

    Re: .14
    
    >Looking in from other cultures, it's really quite clear that American
    >origins definitely affected the current societal mores
    
    Not so clear from the example of the woman from Zurich.  Her statements
    don't express a comparison.  Americans might be like that, but she
    hasn't said (or you haven't mentioned her saying) that Europeans
    *aren't* like that.  Maybe she sees the same thing in Europe and
    she likes it just as little there.
    
    Also, the validity of generalizing from her comments depends not
    on how long she spent here or how many states she visited, but how
    many people she met and talked to, which isn't mentioned.  Also,
    how diverse were the people she met?

    The comparison is implicit in her statement. Otherwise she woundn't
    have said it.
    
    Also, I agree it is a gross generalization (I said so) but it's
    a RELATIVE generalization and, incidentally, aligns with my own
    observations (I'm British and lived in North America for nearly
    5 years).
    
    Regards,
    
    Ray

    Re: .16
    
    >The comparison is implicit in her statement. Otherwise she woundn't
    >have said it.
    
    Oh, I can think of other reasons, but there's no point in a debate
    since she's the only one who knows for sure.
    
    >incidentally, aligns with my own observations
    
    But not with mine, neither with my friends or coworkers.

The following reply is from the anonymous author of the base note.
    
    
    
    
RE:14

Thank you Ray, for reading the base note. I am not sure that
all "missed" the intent but they certainly seemed to be discussing
a different issue.

---

RE: the rest...

Again, I really feel this discussion as it is going trys to pin
the "cause" of an identifiable event on the "results" of the same
event.

For instance, natural selection works because we select using
natural selection....

What I was trying to say....badly it seems, since I obviously was
not very clear...

Is that..

We are *all* taught many things as we grow up...

Right and wrong....in the opionion of our parents
Good and bad....in the opinion of our parents
Nice and not-nice...in the opinion of our parents
ad naseum...

It is a rare bird who flies successfully away from the mores and 
guidelines of the culture that raises him/her...

So is it not reasonable to expect that the attributes with which we judge
our fellow men[women] are also a reflection of our culture?  And in being
such, sometimes will totally ignore the relative worth of an individual
in lieu of the relative needs of the culture?

My point...[again badly made it seems in .0...grin]...is that our
cultural agenda is out of synch with our societal goals....in other
words...we tlk a good line, and even believe it, but when we act,
we often continue to display our up-bringing....

The question is...how do you sucessfully short-circuit the cultural
agenda?