Anarchy

"We do that whether or not the horse or child wants such training. Training requires suppression of the trainee's will, and hence of play. The agricultural approach to parenting is, therefore, not a playful one." -- Peter Gray

Not sure what exactly the topic is to debate here, Prof if you could clarify for me, it would be appreciated, but until then, I found Mr. Gray's comment above amusing.

In nearly half a century on this planet, much of that time spent interacting with young people, I have never had success raising or training a child, student, friend or co-worker by taking a "non-playful" approach. In the context above, I assume Mr. Gray uses training in the context of discipline, rigor, with a whip to stay with the horse metaphor.

No way.  

Teaching the young is to develop in them the ability to become self-sufficient. You can substitute "raising, training, mentoring" for teaching but its all the same thing. Left on their own, the young are increasingly at risk of a difficult path to adaptation to society. As a raw example, think of Lord of the Flies. Learn to survive? Yes. Learn to survive and thrive in todays society without a comprehension of laws, ethics, manners, etc? Difficult.

And in teaching, the most succesful teacher is the one who can engage the student. Play, if utilized properly, can be a most powerful tactic for the student to learn the lesson - willingly so I don't follow the "supression of the trainee's will" logic at all.

Granted, not all students/children engage in the same way, but a playful environment can facilitate a much more productive learning environment than a dictatorship approach. Isn't that why when we all attend a presentation, the most boring are the ones that are read to us, whereas the most engaging and useful are the ones that involve audience participation or variety?

So while I understand Mr. Gray's point, I find that particular article to be narrow minded. 

... but I have to confess that I'm confused.  What in particular are you objecting to in Mr. Gray's comments? I see you both advocating elements of play in instructional interaction, but... which part of his argument do you find narrow-minded? Is it in his labeling the non-play approach as "agricultural"?

My apologies, Stip... I can be thick sometimes. 

Let me try to elaborate. In the context that I took his remarks (because unlike you, I can be thick all the time and am very likely misunderstanding Gray's point!) I disagree that the agricultural view is not a playful one.

Maybe it would be clearer for me to say it doesn't have to be that way.

When I read that particular thought, I was struck that Gray was using the word "train" in a disciplinary way. One way communication. Superior to subordinate. A dominant, dictatorial view that would lend itself to the trainee feeling as if the training were against their will.

I've been "trained" by people like that, and in that context, did not like it and resisted. My point is that training or raising can be accomplished in a playful environment.

... I wondered if that's what you were getting at! Thank you for helping me out...

As a person who was raised on a farm myself, I can relate to your reaction to Gray's equating "not playful" with an agricultural point of view.  But I think we have to take his comments in a much broader context.  I understand what he's saying to mean that agriculture created the conditions wherein a "non-playful" or, put another way, "authoritarian" mode of social organization could emerge.  Agriculture didn't cause the shift.  It merely facilitated it.  In fact, when I've made points similar to Gray's, I've suggested that the establishment of agriculture eventually allowed the emergence of an URBAN ethic, and it's this urban ethic that is hierarchical, authoritarian, and so on.  That is to say, the agricultural lifestyle does sacrifice some valuable things possessed by the nomadic lifestyle, but those things are relatively easy to replace with new social norms and rituals that will maintain, among other things, play.  Even so, the agricultural lifestyle does take a culture one step closer to urbanism, which sacrifices even more things possessed by both the nomadic and agricultural lifestyles and renders all of those precious human qualities difficult (though not impossible) to replace.

I tend to think that the world can handle urbanism, but not without some nomads to balance the whole thing out, with agriculturists at a kind of fulcrum, as it were.  Back when the planet was mostly rural we were in a better place than we are now, and urbanism is still spreading rapidly.

So... while I agree that there might be a better way for Gray to present his ideas, I think he's on the right track, generally speaking.  And I don't think he's really trying to throw agriculture under the bus.  He just (rightly) sees the emergence of agriculture as a trigger so that's the word he latches onto.

Maybe this is worth pulling out as a separate topic but reading what you said here reminds me that my own thoughts about urban living are mixed.  When I was walking around this exhibit about Native American Beliefs in Washington, it was really noticeable that the beliefs went from a circular to a hierarchical and dualistic structure with the Inca who were city dwellers.

But then I'm also aware of a lot of community connections made in urban environments--friends who buy triple deckers and live in a kind of communal arrangement with their neighbors with common gardens in the back yards and that kind of thing.  And in the Rushkoff book he talks about the connected experience of city living when he was young in contrast to the isolation of suburbia when his family moved.  That's all got me thinking about what, besides the actual physical make-up of how we live (for instance what might be the difference between cities when they were primarily the dwelling place of the upper classes and when they became the dwelling of the working classes) impacts on things like connectedness and hierarchy.

Anyway, I wonder if you can say more about the urban ethic, how it arises, and how it can be handled with nomads and agriculturilists as fulcrum.  Are any of these spatial relationships--nomadic, agricultural, urban--determinative of a social organization, or just strongly tending toward particular kinds of interaction?

Well said. And in doing so, you hit on something that may explain to me your reason for starting this discussion on anarchy in the first place. Was there a particular direction you were hoping to take when you asked us to comment about anarchy? I've read your original post, twice now, and not sure it asks a question or poses a position. Maybe you just wanted to discuss anarchy in any way shape or form. If so, cool. Ironic actually, to allow us such leeway, rather a vehicle to create anarchy of response ;-)

Your comment: "Back when the planet was mostly rural we were in a better place than we are now" hints to me that you think we are on a course set for anarchy. If I'm wrong, please correct me. But if I'm right, then I agree that as we make advances in medicine, health, nutrition, etc., that all serves to extend life-expectancy, it also means we will, eventually, exhaust the planets resources that will lead to our extinction.

If you remember the 1973 movie "Soilent Green" with Charleton Heston, it dealt with similar societal issues.

Does that mean that governments will eventually be forced to impose birth restrictions?

Today we have access through the internet to a vast storehouse of medical research--allowing people to be their own medical advocates (something a friend of mine just went through with her daughter--pushing for a test that she was told was unnecessary).  There is an attempt to cut off that access primarily being funded by medical publishing groups.  This is something that is not receiving much attention and will have a huge impact if it goes through so I urge people to contact their congresspeople on this issue.

Protect our access to medical research

Thank you for posting this one Jaz.  Actually, it's scary the things we don't hear about that get pushed through Congress; I actually think I'm pretty good at keeping up and I hadn't heard of this one.  It was going on since Sept 2008.  I did a quick search to see what bill this was:

Publishers squared off against public access advocates yesterday in Congress, as they testified concerning the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (HR 6845), which would essentially bar agencies of the federal government from requiring the transfer of copyright as a condition for receiving public funding.

Zerhouni strongly defended the NIH mandate, saying there was “no real evidence of any deleterious impact” on publishers, and said in no uncertain terms, despite publishers' claims, the policy did not impinge on copyrights. Zerhouni said that his mandate was aimed to maximize the return on investment for the public, which funds the research, and for the scientific community.

Frank, a noted opponent of the NIH policy, bluntly reiterated publishers’ longstanding complaints: “The NIH has become a publisher,” Frank said, asserting the NIH was now competing with scientific publishers, taking unfair advantage of publishers’ value-added efforts in editing and peer-review, and diminishing copyright.

I went to see the status of the legislation and I stumbled across this:

For immediate release
March 12, 2009
Contact:
Jennifer McLennan
jennifer [at] arl [dot] org
(202) 296-2296 ext. 121

FIRST U.S. PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY MADE PERMANENT

2009 Consolidated Appropriations Act ensures NIH public access policy will persist

Washington, D.C. – March 12, 2009 – President Obama yesterday signed into law the 2009 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which includes a provision making the National Institutes’ of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy permanent. The NIH Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access requires eligible NIH-funded researchers to deposit electronic copies of their peer-reviewed manuscripts into the National Library of Medicine’s online archive, PubMed Central (PMC). Full texts of the articles are made publicly available and searchable online in PMC no later than 12 months after publication in a journal.

The NIH policy was previously implemented with a provision that was subject to annual renewal. Since the implementation of the revised policy the percentage of eligible manuscripts deposited into PMC has increased significantly, with over 3,000 new manuscripts being deposited each month. The PubMed Central database is a part of a valuable set of public database resources at the NIH, which are accessed by more than 2 million users each day.

Both these books look intriguing.

I especially liked the connection made in the first one (The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind by James Boyle) between the enclosure of property in England--which had disaterous results on the poor--and intellectual property rights.

"The lesson usually drawn from this episode is that private ownership makes for economic efficiency. At any rate, this is the lesson drawn by the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, software, and entertainment industries and successfully peddled by them (with a little help from campaign contributions) to Congress. In the last several decades, Congress has drastically extended the term and broadened the scope of both patents and copyrights, on the premise that only monopoly control of the product will motivate companies to invest the large sums required for research and development. So computer programs, gene sequences, chemical compounds, melodies, and databases, or even tiny parts of all these things, are increasingly no longer available to other artists, scientists, and programmers without payment of a stiff licensing fee."

Essentially similar to what we've been talking about as far as the charter system of corporations in "Running a company or running the country."

The other book, Viral Spiral by David Spollier looks like it's about various creative endeavours coming out of "Open Source" type movements (which I kept trying to find where I had referenced before as far as Rushkoff's talking about it in relation to religion--and I found it--it's on that other "Anarchy"thread).  Really!  Two completely different locations for anarchy--what kind of sense of order is organizing this site!  You're just letting the anarchy proliferate!  It's like rabbits er sumpin!

What's mine should be yours

Oh man... it's my entire life in one photo...

Awww, the poor GC...

and yet, somehow...I'm not completely buyin' it...

Well... he's got the curiosity down for sure.

Well, I'll agree with the "intelligent" part, but not so much the "unselfish" part.  Some selfish people might be jerks, but (so long as they're still intelligent) they can fairly easily be persuaded to cooperate... all they need is to be shown that it's in their best interest.

As for intelligence... well, I think people are intelligent.  I tend to think they willfully set that intelligence aside, though, out of fear.  One thing they seem to fear is their own power to make a difference.

But let's be clear about what anarchy ISN'T... or at least my definition of it. It isn't tribalism or chaos.  It doesn't prevent one for embarking on projects that require rigid organization.  But nor does it give in to the notion that some elite group is required to tell the stupid, selfish masses what to do.  You're right, my friend.  The system is broken.  But would it be fixed merely by putting some other group in charge? Say you can even find such a group that would not favor the wealthy and otherwise influential (good luck with that one, by the way), would that really fix anything?

I tend to think not.

Human altruism is a myth.

Mankind's ability to take care of mankind is a myth.

No human is fit to rule. No group of humans are fit to rule. No human system works. We have 6,000 years of history to attest to that.

Well... but as a Christian you at least believe in a "conditional altruism", yes? An altruism that comes from the presence of the in-dwelling Spirit? Surely that counts for something.

Of course, I don't think the Christian ethic is about so-called "pure" altruism anyway... in the Golden Rule one is required to care for oneself as well as others.

I think any human that ever became purely altruistic would immediately fall down dead on the spot. Maybe that's the secret behind spontaneous human combustion (I'm fascinated with that subject and I have no idea why).

I'd say that what altruism humans try to muster and the altruism that a few humans allow to come from the indwelling Spirit does count for something. But it generally results in random acts of kindness, not the running of a society.

The Golden Rule doesn't kill altruism. A human cannot care for others by neglecting himself. Feeding yourself so you have the strength to carry on isn't an act of selfishness. That has nothing to do with why human altruism doesn't exist. It's because there's never been a human who was able to set aside the self in favor of another for any amount of time. Everybody who ever gave the appearance of being altruistic had an ulterior selfish motive, even if it was nothing more than a sense of satisfaction from helping others.

Of course, I don't feel that selfishness is automatically a bad thing either. For everything there is a season, and all that. I just know that any large goal that relies on human altruism is going to fail before it gets off the ground.

An article in the paper today suggests that altruism is a trait one looks for in a mate--probably to do with long-term parenting in humans.  Don't think that fits the definition of "pure" altruism--because there's a benefit to the person choosing a mate.  I'm not sure I believe in a kind of pure altruism though just because I think self and other are always connected.

Kindness has its own appeal

Review of a new book on the Western History of altruism.  I liked this idea of "robust kindness" cited in the review: “It is kind to be able to bear conflict, in oneself and others; it is kind, to oneself and others, to forgo magic and sentimentality for reality. It is kind to see individuals as they are, rather than how we might want them to be; it is kind to care for people just as we find them.’’

Also liked this quotation on the central problem with Western attitudes toward kindness:

"Kindness, in today’s thinking, is “either a higher form of selfishness (the kind that is morally triumphant and secretly exploitative), or the lowest form of weakness . . . a virtue of losers.’’ Our suspiciousness of charity, our doubts about the possibility of altruism, our “ghettoization’’ of kindness by relegating it to women, even our sexual hang-ups, according to Phillips and Taylor, are different faces of the same essential error. What makes us want to shunt kindness off to the sidelines? Fear, of course. “The pleasure of kindness is that it connects us with others; but the terror of kindness is that it makes us too immediately aware of our own and other people’s vulnerabilities. . . . particularly the vulnerability we call desire.’’ "

Why bother being nice?

This is another in several scientific studies pointing to altruism as an evolutionary advantage.  It points to the fact that generosity gains one status and respect in the social group.  This is very much in keeping with what I know of the way kinship group leadership works.

Do Kinder People Have an Evolutionary Advantage?

I agree that it doesn't fit the definition of "pure" altruism...

Not infallible to temptation, but I think pure altruism/altruistic acts can be attained in someone that is very spiritual and has a remarkeable empathetic nature. An example I have in mind is a documentary of Desmond Doss called The Concentious Objector.

But was Desmond Doss truly altruistic? That he was brave there is no doubt, but he directly facilitated his fellow man to carry out actions he refused to do himself. He saved the lives of soldiers so they could get back in the fight and kill some more. That would be looking out for the welfare of just "good guys" instead of everyone. I haven't seen the movie you linked so I don't know if this was an internal conflict of his or not, but it seems this may not be the example to quote.

- PFC Ling

Hello, PFC Ling! As I've not seen you post before, I'm assuming you're a new face here at JIMGP, and as such, welcome!

As much as I want to agree with you, as your statements could lend support to my own position that human altruism is nothing more than an idyllic pipedream, I fear I cannot on the grounds that "so they could get back in the fight and kill some more" does not naturally follow "He saved the lives of soldiers". You could, with just as much support, substitute "so they could wear fuzzy pink bunny slippers" or "cartwheel naked through the Grand Canyon" or any number of other things. While it is certainly true that some of those men would have been put back into the war effort after he saved them, you can't draw a direct line from that back to Desmond's motives. We also don't know, from the limited data available, that Desmond would have denied care to a similarly wounded opponent, so the limitation to the "good guys" would be difficult to prove as well.

Hey PFC Ling,

If altruism can be defined as unselfish concern for the welfare of others, then I can't think of a more appropriate example than Doss. To counter your argument that he was looking out for the welfare of just the "good guys", one of the points made in the film was he even got caught giving aid to wounded Japanese soldiers and his life was threatened for it. 

Whether altruism exists exclusively on an individual level or whether ESi is correct and the "act of doing" is self-pleasurement and is consequentially benefitting the pipedreamer's genes and so forth, Doss was still an original, selfless war hero. He held to his convictions despite everything that happened to him by our soldiers and by the enemy.

Of course, I recommend watching and forming your own opinion.

   OMGC!

HAH! ESi--spontaneous combustion--that totally cracked me up!

I guess one problem I'm having with this debate is it seems to rest on a definition of self and other that I'm not sure I agree with, that is that they are totally separate and isolated entities and that altruism depends on being totally selfless--which if the self is this unified, separate entity which directs my actions then actually I don't see how it's possible to exist without it. But if instead that division is much less defined (as for instance was suggested in the discussion about mirror neurons ) then our actions might never be completely selfless or selfish but some result of the interaction between self and other.

The other problem I have is the assumption that if we act kindly towards someone else this is ultimately a selfish action because we are doing it in order to get the sense of satisfaction from helping others. Two objections to that--one is that I've read studies that show that people will behave altruistically even when there would be more benefit to them in behaving selfishly. (Not everyone does this, but some do.) Now they may be getting the benefit of that satisfaction--but they are rejecting an even greater benefit in favor of acting for someone else. So it doesn't seem that selfishness can be the only motivator. The other objection--just from personal experience is that a lot of my actions (whether selfish or altruistic) just don't seem to work in such a way that I think "what am I getting out of this?"-- they are more automatic than that.

Ya know, it's OK if you don't agree with me. Most people don't, after all.

I think self is a discrete entity. Self is where I stop and anything that is not I starts. The only thing I have is self and nobody is taking that away. Some people are really lucky and get more than one self, but all they get for it is locked up.

I think maybe you skipped the part where I said selfishness isn't necessarily bad, though. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, the ability for humans to flip the altruism switch off and on any old time is the proof that humans aren't really altruistic. Also, as GC said earlier, it's conditional. A truly altruistic act would be performed for anyone, not just someone who happened to fit in the group of people that the actor determines is worthy of the altruistic act.

Thanks, but actually, do you think most people disagree with you? I actually think that although people may give a lot of lip service to selflessness, I'm not sure how many really believe in it. Or perhaps it would be m ore accurate to say I don't think people have generally thought through the implications of their beliefs about selfishness or selflessness much.

And, actually my thoughts didn't really have to do with whether selfishness is bad or good, but more about how I think the whole mechanism of choices and motivations might work.

Mostly letting you know I'm not offended if you don't agree. Especially since the world would be one disturbed place if many people agreed with me on many things.

I don't want to interfere at all with how you perceive choices and motivations, but I'd like to remind you of the context in which they function. It's like, when I'm down at the co-op, and all the 'save the whales' people are coming in and out and just because I'm standing near the carts while my wife tries to stuff our baby into her seat protector thing, that I'm there to put their carts away for them. Save the whales but treat everyone me like a peon, these are the winners we are surrounded by.

I don't know if it's gift or curse that I do so much people-watching and do it so closely, but I tell you, most people are scum and don't think much beyond what benefits themselves, when they can be bothered to think at all. I'm not saying there aren't good people in the world. I just think you and the GC greatly overestimate their numbers.

Ah well, in the example you cite, I have to say that my experience from having worked in political or social activist causes is that there are always at least a certain percentage (and actually I think a higher percentage than in the population at large, ironically) that are extremely self-righteous and wield whatever cause they are working for as a weapon.

Hard to say what the numbers might actually be either based on your experience, mine, the GC's, or anyone else's. I know that I probably do have an overly optimistic view of people sometimes because when someone does something I would consider pretty nasty or rude to me personally--I often don't even react at first 'cause I'm so surprised. But maybe the truth lies somewhere between our two perspectives.

 Sounds like the world needs a little more ANARCHY BABY!  WOO HOOOOOO!

No... we need anarchists with connections out the wahzoo. 

Well, again, I don't think anarchy relies on altruism to work.

And I wasn't saying the Golden Rule kills altruism, per se.  I was kind of trying to point out that the classical distinctions between "altruistic" and "selfish" might not be adequate for dealing with the complexities of human ethics and motivation.

All of that said... I can't say that I share your perspective on human nature.  I think humans can and do often act in selfless ways, whether one wants to credit the Spirit for it or not.  But... that's just my opinion.