Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
On social class
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
I believe that humans are designed or design themselves to fit in a template of social classes, and that pawns, are also, predetermined, and thus in ancient language, 'God ordained'.
Look at the bees, or ants, or any social animals. There's always a hierarchy.
And so is it for humans!
The problem then is how different societies, find the right people for the right task. Such that, it's probable that a society may fail to have a way of assigning social class that is optimal.
Such that the wrong people end up getting the wrong roles.
That is how a society degenerates.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 12/7/2012 Posts: 11,937
|
Guessed right  In the business world, everyone is paid in two coins - cash and experience. Take the experience first; the cash will come later - H Geneen
|
|
|
Rank: User Joined: 8/15/2013 Posts: 13,237 Location: Vacuum
|
tycho wrote:I believe that humans are designed or design themselves to fit in a template of social classes, and that pawns, are also, predetermined, and thus in ancient language, 'God ordained'.
Look at the bees, or ants, or any social animals. There's always a hierarchy.
And so is it for humans!
The problem then is how different societies, find the right people for the right task. Such that, it's probable that a society may fail to have a way of assigning social class that is optimal.
Such that the wrong people end up getting the wrong roles.
That is how a society degenerates. England in the 2018 world cup If Obiero did it, Who Am I?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,823 Location: Nairobi
|
tycho wrote:I believe that humans are designed or design themselves to fit in a template of social classes, and that pawns, are also, predetermined, and thus in ancient language, 'God ordained'.
Look at the bees, or ants, or any social animals. There's always a hierarchy.
And so is it for humans!
The problem then is how different societies, find the right people for the right task. Such that, it's probable that a society may fail to have a way of assigning social class that is optimal.
Such that the wrong people end up getting the wrong roles.
That is how a society degenerates. it's all part of the fiction... if indeed humans were designed to do what it is you are saying it would have been quite natural to fall in line. as natural as say eating or farting or walking. Humans imagined and made up classes and social order. The rules to maintain social order are not natural to humans - they must be taught! Society must put conscious effort towards enforcing this order. A good example is say... back in the days of the Sumerians where Hammurabi crafted some 282 laws all of which were in his own words chosen by "the gods Anu and Enlil, for the enhancement of the well-being of the people". It placed different penalties when a 'superior man' was killed to what one was supposed to pay when a 'commoner' or a commoner woman or slave was 'worth'. Much later akina Thomas Jeffeson came up with a different 'idea' as he and company held that "these 'truths' to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - No commoner no Superior man... just all men (white men then). The idea was polished when Negros were considered "Men" as well as women joined the ranks of the referred to "Men". all these ideas that have been "inspired by God" are taught to humans and then codified into "laws" and then we have lawyers doing their bidding. The very fact that we have a thread called "On social class" and not whether humans fart or poop is an indicator that it's not as "natural" as you would think of it. Not as natural as say the laws of gravity! Researchers have taken time to study ants and bees and they continue to get marveled by the intricate nature of these societies. each bee does exactly what it's supposed to do. No bee aspires to be something else. While there are nursing bees, worker bees, drones, soldiers, queens - there are no lawyer bees or teacher bees. The order of bees is natural - no arguments among them on workers rights or whether drones should live fuller lives - no... their order is in their DNA. Not human order - human order is a product of our inter-subjective consciousness - a good product... like plastic but not a natural one. So there are no "wrong people in the wrong roles" - there are "WHAT WE CONSIDER wrong people in the wrong roles". our consideration is colored by the goggles we view our reality using. SOCIAL ORDER WAS MADE UP IN THE SAME WAY WE MADE UP MANY OTHER THINGS LIKE COUNTRIES,ROLES, HUMAN RIGHTS,GOOD MANNERS, LAWS, GENDER, RULES OF FOOTBALL. This is not meant to trivialize these thing but to remove them from a pedestal of "natural" things. Therefore, the phrase 'God ordained' comes in the long line of similar statements that are nothing but another way of shifting responsibility of the not so palatable outcome of your ideas and thoughts from you (the creator of the idea) to God. Whom of course we cannot question! All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Allow me to restate your argument more 'formally'.
1. There are natural things and fictional things
2. Natural things exclude fictional ones in the same set
3. Bees/ants are natural and non-fictional
4. Humans are not like bees and therefore are fictional
5. Humans can perceive the non-fictional and the fictional but such perception is purely inter-subjective
If, I have misstated anything, then please correct me. Or if I haven't stated an important part of your argument please add that argument as simply as possible.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/22/2008 Posts: 2,723
|
tycho wrote:Allow me to restate your argument more 'formally'.
1. There are natural things and fictional things
2. Natural things exclude fictional ones in the same set
3. Bees/ants are natural and non-fictional
4. Humans are not like bees and therefore are fictional
5. Humans can perceive the non-fictional and the fictional but such perception is purely inter-subjective
If, I have misstated anything, then please correct me. Or if I haven't stated an important part of your argument please add that argument as simply as possible. Masukuma's argument does not need to be restated. It is beautiful and clear just the way it is.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Kusadikika wrote:tycho wrote:Allow me to restate your argument more 'formally'.
1. There are natural things and fictional things
2. Natural things exclude fictional ones in the same set
3. Bees/ants are natural and non-fictional
4. Humans are not like bees and therefore are fictional
5. Humans can perceive the non-fictional and the fictional but such perception is purely inter-subjective
If, I have misstated anything, then please correct me. Or if I haven't stated an important part of your argument please add that argument as simply as possible. Masukuma's argument does not need to be restated. It is beautiful and clear just the way it is. Some of us, albeit we are few, know the importance of distilling normal language to formal logic structures. And who apparently take a different view of what is beautiful and simple. I'll assume my restatement is correct then. For which I will add that @masukuma's ideas or argument is ill conceived and erroneous.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,823 Location: Nairobi
|
Kusadikika wrote:tycho wrote:Allow me to restate your argument more 'formally'.
1. There are natural things and fictional things
2. Natural things exclude fictional ones in the same set
3. Bees/ants are natural and non-fictional
4. Humans are not like bees and therefore are fictional
5. Humans can perceive the non-fictional and the fictional but such perception is purely inter-subjective
If, I have misstated anything, then please correct me. Or if I haven't stated an important part of your argument please add that argument as simply as possible. Masukuma's argument does not need to be restated. It is beautiful and clear just the way it is.  - thanks @Kusadikika! I don't know why I am doing this but here we go Quote:
1. There are natural things and fictional things - YES
2. Natural things exclude fictional ones in the same set - YES
3. Bees/ants are natural and non-fictional - YES. bees are natural and their behavior is natural - similar to the sucking of a nipple by a baby! no infant is told that sucking the nipple is good for them - they just SUCK. no classes for sucking nipples.
4. Humans are not like bees and therefore are fictional NO... this is where you get it wrong. I didn't say HUMANS ARE FICTIONAL.. I said human behavior is guided by fiction. ideology... when I say fiction I don't mean it in a disparaging manner. I just mean... ideas that have been MADE UP.. cooked by the brain... Humans mimic bees by employing these MADE UP ideas and aligning their behavior with these ideas. they get almost similar outcome. please note... WHILE THE IDEA IS FICTION (MADE UP... NOT NATURAL) THE OUTCOME IS NOT. Humans are not like bees in that their behavior is not guided by natural order but rather by artificial order that must be instilled into human beings while they are growing up.... and enforced by lawyers
5. Humans can perceive the non-fictional and the fictional but such perception is purely inter-subjectiveit's not guaranteed... humans can perceive newer fiction not old fiction. So if today I started a religion called CHAFYAHERE whose deity is created the universe by his nose. he sneezed it to being and we adherents of it sneeze at end of petitions to him in order to make him consider our petition. - you would laugh... but if I taught that to my kids and their kids in total exclusion of any other fiction. I may have a religion to reckon with. but I digress... humans perceive both fiction and non-fiction. what is not natural is debated... constitutions, laws, rights. not whether if you stand on top of a building and take one step too far - you will fall. not all fiction is intersubjective - many things fail to catch on. they die with their founders but if they out live their founders and have more and more adherents... they may just survive... unless of course the whole group that 'believed' this fiction is killed. a good example is 'human rights' the more people who believe in it and act on it - the more stable it becomes. at one point there was no concept of human rights and now it's everywhere. we are teaching ourselves these things. please note... the OUTCOME of collectively engaging in certain fiction as opposed to others IS NOT FICTION
All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Thanks @Masukuma.
1. 'Natural' and 'fictional' are indistinguishable in most cases that we may need to reconsider what they mean.
But in this case, you distinguish 'natural' from 'fictional' using the parameter of 'teaching'.
You believe that an infant isn't taught to suckle the mama's breast for example. Yet when we look at an infant and how it is introduced to the oral stage and how it progresses there's no mistake that an infant is taught to suckle.
First the mother must bring the infant's mouth into contact with the breasts. This is important in teaching, because it's called prompting.
Let's say for instance that we can't be too sure that the infant doesn't in fact know that breasts are for sucking, and that though it knows, the muscles in the hands are too weak to make the move...
But then that would be contrary to what experience and scientific research shows about psycho-motor development. When brain development and other organs are asynchronous then the organism can't adapt to it's environment appropriately.
So, an infant is taught to suck the mothers breast.
And there's also extensive literature on ants and bees, and many other animals that teach their young ones lessons beginning from the most basic things to complex maneuvers.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
2. A critical question we may also ask is: Do colonies of a similar species of ants exhibit behavioral and any other differences?
The answer is 'Yes'.
So if there are differences in colony characteristics, even in what we may define as 'the same field', for example in the same farm.
Wouldn't we then say that the ants are engaged in fictionalizing?
And How would we account for the source of this 'fictionalizing'?
Finally, how is ant fictionalizing different from human fictionalizing?
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
On social class
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|