|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 25, 2023 18:02:45 GMT
Norms are emergent from societies that succeed rather than fail. In the same way that our bodies are handed down to us from past organisms that reproduced, our norms are handed down to us from past societies that succeeded and spread. There is obviously a lot more to norms than that. Jews drink alcohol. Muslims don't. Jews and Muslims lived in the same conditions for years, yet had opposing norms. There is a theory that Muslims adopted their prohibition on alcohol only because Jews drank alcohol. It was a means of separating themselves as a group. The theory goes that muslims would have included alcohol as a central part of their religion if Jews had been abstinent. The same goes for table manners. There was a time when the aristocracy would spit on the banquet room floor, belch loudly, etc., while eating. This changed when the King took their armies from them. The possession of an army was what had distinguished the aristocracy from the hoi polloi before. Deprived of this distinguisher, the aristocracy then set about distinguishing themselves with table manners, etc. (I think this is Durkheim's theory). As always, the ordinary people followed suit in time. These are just theories, of course. But, if true, the desire of groups to set themselves apart as a distinct group is at least as powerful a force for establishing norms as any contribution norms may make to survival. So, one answer to the question who sets norms is: the group you don't wish to be associated with. They set norms in the sense that you must do the opposite of what they do if you wish to be a distinct entity. Some groups set themselves apart to establish themselves as the rule givers,as Voltaire said if god didn't exist man would have to invent him.
Since religion in the west at least is in decline new gods have appeared one being the green agenda and net zero,I don't expect it to be received well by some but it does have aspects of religion and those who disagree being labelled deniers.
Norms are about power and control aren't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 25, 2023 18:58:50 GMT
Norms are about power and control aren't they?
I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 25, 2023 19:20:42 GMT
Norms are about power and control aren't they?
I don't know. An honest answer. I think down the ages norms have been set by the few to control the many,but that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Mar 26, 2023 8:43:54 GMT
I would rephrase wapentake's observation to, 'control of the norm has been set by the few'.
That control is exercised in different ways in our current political state, as both small- and big-C conservatives seek to conserve the norm as they define it and progressives seek to progress or evolve the norm toward their definition.
But evolution is a lot more than simply 'survival of the fittest', not least because 'the fittest' is ill-defined. Furthermore, societal evolution is not tied to the same glacial timescale as is human biological evolution. Biologically modern humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, but organised societies as we would recognise them have only evolved in the last 5000 or so, and the rate of that evolution has developed exponentially. Thus, going back to my first post in this thread, are those who 'deviate from the norm' aberrant, or are they the social equivalent of the genetic mutations and variations that have allowed our biological form to evolve?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 26, 2023 10:10:01 GMT
But evolution is a lot more than simply 'survival of the fittest', not least because 'the fittest' is ill-defined. Furthermore, societal evolution is not tied to the same glacial timescale as is human biological evolution. Biologically modern humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, but organised societies as we would recognise them have only evolved in the last 5000 or so, and the rate of that evolution has developed exponentially. Thus, going back to my first post in this thread, are those who 'deviate from the norm' aberrant, or are they the social equivalent of the genetic mutations and variations that have allowed our biological form to evolve? I think the analogy with biological evolution is good, but it maybe needs to be slightly outlined. A society is a group of people who have a shared 'way of life' that works. That 'way of life' thing is made of shared information about how to relate to each other - ie norms. The evolutionary pressure (fitness vs unfitness) comes from the relative success of these norms. If a bundle of these values results in a failing society of unhappy people, it doesn't have much influence - while, conversely - a successful society will have large influence and will have many descendant societies that share its norms. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 26, 2023 10:11:33 GMT
But evolution is a lot more than simply 'survival of the fittest', not least because ' the fittest' is ill-defined. I could be wrong, but I've always thought the 'fittest' were those best equipped to survive. The 'fit' aren't necessarily the most intelligent or 'advanced'. For instance, human intelligence has produced nuclear weapons. These may very well destroy the human race. A species of human beings that is intelligent, but not so intelligent as to have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, is 'fitter' than one that is, despite being less intelligent. I hope I haven't missed your point. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 26, 2023 13:31:35 GMT
What are kittens doing when they play-fight and 'hunt' their siblings? It is believed that they are learning the skills necessary to hunt and kill in adulthood. Play is a learning tool. It is thought that play is a learning tool for all species who engage in it. Roleplay is, perhaps, the most common form of play engaged in by human children (roleplaying cops and robbers, etc.). Why is that? What skill is the child learning for adulthood when he engages in roleplay? Carl Jung had a theory. He believed that we are all unique individuals, with our own unique ideas. However, society can't accommodate all these different ideas. In order for society to work, we must conform to a standard, we must all read from the same page. A degree of uniqueness is fine, but limits must be placed upon it. Where our beliefs go beyond what is acceptable, we must wear a mask to hide those beliefs. We may believe something, but we must not say it if it is too far outside the box of what is acceptable; instead, we must play the role of someone who believes what everyone else appears to believe, or risk condemnation from the group. Roleplay is the human child's preparation for a life of pretending to be something he is not, pretending to believe things he does not, in the same way that play-fighting is a kitten's way of preparing for a lifetime of acquiring food for itself. Do you agree or disagree? Jung was a student of Freud, who came up with a load of wrong theories that were universally adopted by the establishment and taught to students long after they were found to be false. Freud's theories on sex were unconvincing, but Jung went one stage further and started believing in the supernatural nature of dreams. He was an occultist, so his weird views seemed to intertwine with his academic writings. I would take anything Jung and Freud said with a pinch of salt. Psychoanalysis is a shifty subject in itself. You can easily disappear down a rabbit hole of confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 26, 2023 13:39:53 GMT
I would rephrase wapentake's observation to, 'control of the norm has been set by the few'. That control is exercised in different ways in our current political state, as both small- and big-C conservatives seek to conserve the norm as they define it and progressives seek to progress or evolve the norm toward their definition. But evolution is a lot more than simply 'survival of the fittest', not least because 'the fittest' is ill-defined. Furthermore, societal evolution is not tied to the same glacial timescale as is human biological evolution. Biologically modern humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, but organised societies as we would recognise them have only evolved in the last 5000 or so, and the rate of that evolution has developed exponentially. Thus, going back to my first post in this thread, are those who 'deviate from the norm' aberrant, or are they the social equivalent of the genetic mutations and variations that have allowed our biological form to evolve? I think you will find fittest is exactly defined in the group sense. It is simply to do with survival and reproduction. If one gene survives to have ten children and those go on to have another 10 children each ten that would be a fit gene. It can work in other ways too, like one gene might be a scientist gene which where in a society, that society benefits by those who are not directly related to reproduction but serve to aid others to do so. Never-the-less that's what the fittest is the collective sense is. It's why we don't have a homosexual gene. That would have died out a long time ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 26, 2023 13:41:20 GMT
What are kittens doing when they play-fight and 'hunt' their siblings? It is believed that they are learning the skills necessary to hunt and kill in adulthood. Play is a learning tool. It is thought that play is a learning tool for all species who engage in it. Roleplay is, perhaps, the most common form of play engaged in by human children (roleplaying cops and robbers, etc.). Why is that? What skill is the child learning for adulthood when he engages in roleplay? Carl Jung had a theory. He believed that we are all unique individuals, with our own unique ideas. However, society can't accommodate all these different ideas. In order for society to work, we must conform to a standard, we must all read from the same page. A degree of uniqueness is fine, but limits must be placed upon it. Where our beliefs go beyond what is acceptable, we must wear a mask to hide those beliefs. We may believe something, but we must not say it if it is too far outside the box of what is acceptable; instead, we must play the role of someone who believes what everyone else appears to believe, or risk condemnation from the group. Roleplay is the human child's preparation for a life of pretending to be something he is not, pretending to believe things he does not, in the same way that play-fighting is a kitten's way of preparing for a lifetime of acquiring food for itself. Do you agree or disagree? Jung was a student of Freud, who came up with a load of wrong theories that were universally adopted by the establishment and taught to students long after they were found to be false. Freud's theories on sex were unconvincing, but Jung went one stage further and started believing in the supernatural nature of dreams. He was an occultist, so his weird views seemed to intertwine with his academic writings. I would take anything Jung and Freud said with a pinch of salt. Psychoanalysis is a shifty subject in itself. You can easily disappear down a rabbit hole of confusion. Jung 'believed' in synchronicity (hence all the experiments with I Ching) - I don't know if that counts as 'supernatural'. The question whether he believed in the supernatural can be separated from whether he believed there were benefits to believing in the supernatural (even if there is no such thing). He certainly believed that mankind benefited from believing such things. I'm not an expert, but I don't think he believed that people appearing in dreams were supernatural messengers. He believed they were messengers from the unconscious mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 26, 2023 13:45:19 GMT
Jung was a student of Freud, who came up with a load of wrong theories that were universally adopted by the establishment and taught to students long after they were found to be false. Freud's theories on sex were unconvincing, but Jung went one stage further and started believing in the supernatural nature of dreams. He was an occultist, so his weird views seemed to intertwine with his academic writings. I would take anything Jung and Freud said with a pinch of salt. Psychoanalysis is a shifty subject in itself. You can easily disappear down a rabbit hole of confusion. Jung 'believed' in synchronicity (hence all the experiments with I Ching) - I don't know if that counts as 'supernatural'. I would have said so. The existence of synchronicity would mean the universe is all joined up in invisible ways. If synchronicity can be true, so can tarot reading and numerology. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 26, 2023 13:52:46 GMT
Jung was a student of Freud, who came up with a load of wrong theories that were universally adopted by the establishment and taught to students long after they were found to be false. Freud's theories on sex were unconvincing, but Jung went one stage further and started believing in the supernatural nature of dreams. He was an occultist, so his weird views seemed to intertwine with his academic writings. I would take anything Jung and Freud said with a pinch of salt. Psychoanalysis is a shifty subject in itself. You can easily disappear down a rabbit hole of confusion. Jung 'believed' in synchronicity (hence all the experiments with I Ching) - I don't know if that counts as 'supernatural'. The question whether he believed in the supernatural can be separated from whether he believed there were benefits to believing in the supernatural (even if there is no such thing). He certainly believed that mankind benefited from believing such things. I'm not an expert, but I don't think he believed that people appearing in dreams were supernatural messengers. He believed they were messengers from the unconscious mind. It's a long time ago since I read about him and his beliefs. I think it was along the lines that dreams could predict/know stuff that the person did not. Whether that be predicting the future or other psychic claims I can't quite remember (might have been from the past), but is was saying dreams were an aid to psychic abilities of some sort. It was and still is a load of cobblers. Some other stuff he observed was more believable, such as collective intelligence, but when someone comes out with pseudo science at the same time and is a student of Freud, one has to see him as unreliable. He was a kind of Mystic Meg of his day, popular but not good for academia. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 26, 2023 13:56:29 GMT
Jung 'believed' in synchronicity (hence all the experiments with I Ching) - I don't know if that counts as 'supernatural'. I would have said so. The existence of synchronicity would mean the universe is all joined up in invisible ways. If synchronicity can be true, so can tarot reading and numerology. Yes, I suppose. I suppose he did take that sort of thing quite seriously in his later years. More rational Jungians might like to think that he saw a benefit in believing in this sort of thing and encouraged others to believe it because it was healthier than nihilism. But it's hard to make that argument, given how much time he invested in the study of I Ching. His study of tarot cards didn't necessarily require him to believe in the supernatural. He thought that each of the tarot cards represented an archetype. According to him, the 'archetypes' are inherited knowledge passed down through our DNA. There's nothing supernatural about them. |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Mar 26, 2023 14:05:49 GMT
Maybe the world into which we are born is just a stage. Ninety per cent of our mind functions unconsciously, and every new incarnation something new and better comes into being. My parents were north and southern european, my genes go from Iceland to Saudi arabia, and all in between. Except amazingly for the celts and anglo saxons, where i live. I love warm weather, and when it gets very cold i dont feel it, even enjoy it, that there is a call to the wild in there.
There are things about me that doesnt fit into society, i speak plainly, im not conscious of that, only later realising its hurtful. I compute consequences in the same way whatever the issue is, my judgement of such, looking into the future makes me look crazy.
Its automatic, i cant change it, and so it will be with you. Roll play might be about activating dormant unconscious drives. Certainly in criminals and criminals with a mental illness, they seem to be responding to something thats already there, and like myself, are a bit put out when someone responds negatively. Even after killing. Up until the age of about ten i used to kill insects etc because i enjoyed it.
It changed almost overnight , and started doing the opposite, rescuing insects drowning in a water butt, i cant watch the Attenborough programmes watching one animal kill another, theres something sick in that.
Maybe pushing back against these automatic impulses is where we rise up from the animal, and travel from being a Metro to something better. The unconscious mind will be expressed, i have studied Jungs personality work, there i am, as you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 26, 2023 14:07:51 GMT
Jung 'believed' in synchronicity (hence all the experiments with I Ching) - I don't know if that counts as 'supernatural'. The question whether he believed in the supernatural can be separated from whether he believed there were benefits to believing in the supernatural (even if there is no such thing). He certainly believed that mankind benefited from believing such things. I'm not an expert, but I don't think he believed that people appearing in dreams were supernatural messengers. He believed they were messengers from the unconscious mind. It's a long time ago since I read about him and his beliefs. I think it was along the lines that dreams could predict/know stuff that the person did not. Whether that be predicting the future or other psychic claims I can't quite remember (might have been from the past), but is was saying dreams were an aid to psychic abilities of some sort. It was and still is a load of cobblers. Some other stuff he observed was more believable, such as collective intelligence, but when someone comes out with pseudo science at the same time and is a student of Freud, one has to see him as unreliable. He was a kind of Mystic Meg of his day, popular but not good for academia. I believe he was saying that dreams were messages from The Self, one's true character. Indeed, his theory holds that The Self 'knows stuff' the ego does not. |
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Mar 26, 2023 14:17:38 GMT
I told my patients - and tell my students - that dreams are the brain's way of defragging it's hard drive. All five of our senses are inputting information to the brain all the time, but much more so when we're awake. In normal times we can process all of that information as it comes in, but when under stress there is more information than our brain can cope with in the moment and so our dreams are evidence of that additional processing going on while we sleep.  |
|
