>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
Thanks for the reference Roger
In your discussion of the "true" nature of man I think you are leaving out the
nurture in the nature/nurture debate (it is an interaction and can not be
separated). I remember reading a greek historian (Thucydides maybe?)
describing the change in nature occuring when Greece went into a war.
I think this is a tricky question because if nature is partly determined by
the environment then perhaps in a "natural" environment we might get the lord
of the flies effect. Although this reminds me of the mentality of the couple
in ZAMM who was uncomfortable with anything not natural. I think Pirsig has
taught me to extend natural to more than just nature. So the true nature of
man in nature may not be the same as the true nature in a "natural"
environment.
Erin
To: Bard (with PPS to Enoonan)
>
>THE BARD:
>While I have agreed with most of what you have written in this thread, I fear
>that you have fallen into an intellectual trap with this one, as has Pirsig,
>as I have in the past, as all of us have at one time or another. We tend as
>"civilized humans" to confuse primitive "history" with man's nature. This is
>tantamount to future generations judging our nature by viewing videotapes of
>our evening news. We see the results of prior generation's destructiveness,
>greed, persecution, barbarianism because destruction always leaves artifacts.
>But I would argue that we should not judge our ancestor's nature, ergo our
>own, by the small percentage of humans who engaged in cannibalism and torture
>when the majority most probably, given the success of our species, lived in
>peace and harmony, leaving more subtle historical tracks. "Zen" is the first
>word in the title of Pirsig's first book. Let's not forget that the Zen
>approach is that an object (e.g. historical artifact) is defined only by the
>space (e.g. lack of historical artifacts) that surrounds it.
>
>ROG:
>Good point on artifacts and not judging past (or current) trends on biased
>history or on the evening news. Unfortunately though, there is extensive
>research showing that our distant ancestors knew little about harmony.
>Studying animals shows that most complex mammal interactions (excluding
>sexual) either establish status hierarchies of dominance, or they avoid each
>other all together. Biology has a difficult time generating cooperation. It
>can develop within closely related families (usually small packs of very
>close relatives) and can spread somewhat from there between very intelligent
>animals (vampire bats, dolphins, chimps) that remain in very close contact
>with each other and that can "police" each other (ie only cooperate with
>fellow cooperators).
>
>Studies of our nearest relatives -- chimps and bonobos -- is frightening.
>Not only do males routinely fight for dominance and control of breeding, but
>rival troops will go to war and will exterminate each other. Studies of
>prehistoric man reveal that murder was the major cause of death in males,
>with some estimates as high as 25% of males dieing in fights.
>
>I am sorry, your argument sounds great, but it contradicts all evidence.
>Social patterns and modern man have progressed together to higher and higher
>levels of cooperation. Humans have developed or evolved an innate moral
>sense, but our moral sense for fairness, sympathy, duty and self control can
>be offset by our sense of greed, distrust, sneakiness and outrage. We are
>complex beings, not all good and not all bad, but in general the co-evolution
>of man and society has been from brute savagery toward harmony (with lots of
>stumbles on the way).
>
>Pirsig may have overstated his case a bit, but it wasn't by much.
>
>Rog,
>PS -- Despite revisionist historians, ancient people weren't all that
>spectacular at living in harmony with nature either. This natural harmony
>topic is not a secondary issue either. To understand the role of society
>upon nature, one must have a realistic view of man's nature. I recommend The
>Moral Sense by J. Wilson for a balanced and empirical explanation.
>
>PPS -- The Span and Depth phrase comes from Wilber via John. See Wilber's
>*Brief History of Everything*
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:46 BST