The Democratic National Committee excoriated John McCain because he said on “David Letterman,” in regards to the 3000+ soldiers who have died in Iraq, “Americans are very frustrated and they have every right to be. We’ve wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives.” They asserted that MCain had insulted “our brave troops.” McCain subsequently apologized, believing that “sacrificed” would be the better word.
McCain should have told the DNC to sod off. But since he obviously didn’t want to risk an extended imbroglio, he said he used the wrong word. Okay, I’ll do it for him: Sod off, DNC. McCain’s gut instinct was correct, and furthermore the DNC knows it.
To say that young lives have been wasted isn’t to diminish their sacrifice or to demean them. It isn’t to say that they themselves threw away their lives in an empty pursuit. It’s to say that those who were entrusted *with* their lives, to not put them in harm’s way unless absolutely necessary, shirked their responsibility. They’ve done as crap a job at safeguarding our troops as they did safeguarding the Constitution. McCain’s comment was clearly not aimed at the troops; it was aimed at those who sent our troops into a war where they were assured we would be greeted as liberators and be out in no more than six months…while simultaneously destroying our international reputation at a time when, thanks to worldwide sympathy due to 9/11, we could have transformed that tragedy into some sort of true international coalition to fight terrorism.
Wasted opportunity. Wasted lives. The DNC should be ashamed of trying to spin McCain’s word choice into political opportunity and push him into using one that is less loaded…and less accurate. “Sacrifice” implies nobility, but there was nothing noble in the administration’s actions, nothing noble in lying to the American people, nothing noble in declaring “mission accomplished” while thousands more died.
But if “wasted” is off the table, then fine.
How about “squandered?”
PAD
• 
Posted by Den at March 21, 2007 03:03 PM –
“But, do you really want Cartman as leader of the free world?”
Him or Sylvester, either one has to be better George “Elmer Fudd” Bush.
Posted by: mister_pj at March 21, 2007 01:00 PM
“I am always fascinated by the worldview of all the nations joining their hands together in some Disney-like fashion and singing ‘It’s A Small World After All.'”
I am always fascinated by the current administration’s unwillingness to listen to any other nation regarding Iraq, and yet, in the same breath, demand that the rest of the world fall in line.
At risk of coming across a tad naive, I see nothing wrong with the ” It’s a Small World After All” fantasy (except for the song…dear Goddess make it stop!!!). Even if the fantasy can’t be achieved, we gotta do better than we are now.
The Greeks and Romans were devoted to their states and, in keeping slaves, were not resolved to be cowards or immoral. Witches were burned to save the community from mishief, and their persecutors were not resolve to be cowards or immoral. Racists are progressives in that they are social darwinists, and are also not resolved to be cowards or immoral.
The implication that anyone is resolved to do the wrong thing is a moral strawman. As the monkey believes it’s doing the fish a favor by putting it in a tree, those with the resolve to be moral are no more likely to be just than anyone else. Fundamentalism is an obvious example. As Confucius said, the goody-goodies are the thieves of virtue.
And, as in Sin City, the most heinous evil are committed by the guilty who portray themselves as the clean.
Anyone who’s viewed any of James Burke’s documentaries knows it’s open access to ideas — in the form of the printing — that contributed most to the progress and egalitarianism we enjoy today… and Gutenberg was simply looking for a way to pay off some gambling debts.
The resolve to be moral and the romanticization of courage isn’t the solution, it’s the foundation of our woe.
One question: Does it really have to be one extreme or another? Are our only options the obnoxious swagger that pìššëš øff even our best allies or the “It’s a Small World” option? Besides Bush and his cohort, does anyone really believe that we can’t be both strong before our enemies and diplomatic towards our potential friends?
I think this quote below. Whoever can tell me who said and when wins a cookie.
“It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation but strong, they’ll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. And if we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re a humble nation, they’ll respect us.”
Posted by: Den at March 21, 2007 10:08 PM
I think this quote below. Whoever can tell me who said and when wins a cookie.
“It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation but strong, they’ll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. And if we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re a humble nation, they’ll respect us.”
Oh!Oh!Oh! I know! It was…uhm…wait…GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!!
Double stuff Oreos, please.
Posted by: mister_pj at March 21, 2007 01:00 PM
“I am always fascinated by the worldview of all the nations joining their hands together in some Disney-like fashion and singing ‘It’s A Small World After All.‘
We live in a nation based on plurality that is something unique among the nations of the world. I’m not holding our country out as a sterling example that other nations should follow, just making that point.
It seems, in a world in which the nation state is primarily an outgrowth of tribalism, naive of people to think it operates on some other more eloquent value system.
In the meantime, if history has confirmed one thing to me over the last century or so it is that people will focus more on their differences than on their similarities – whether it is based around shared ethnic origins, allegiance to a flag, religion or even political affiliation.”
I noticed that most people responding to this post thought of it as a continuation of Mr. Preston’s ‘who care’s what the world thinks” attitude. I don’t think that was the point.
But I do want to respond to it.
1) The US is certainly not free of tribalism, both internally and externally. Although it is not a nation-state in the sense of European nation that are founded on supposedly ancient nationalities, there is stil an American nation with definable characteristics that are different than othe identities, and that Americans are expected to have or adopt.
2) And you know what, there’s nothing wrong with tribalism. I’m not even saying only that it is part of human nature, although that is certainly true, I’m saying it’s not necessarily bad. People have many group identities simultanously — Country, ethnic group, religious group, city, political group, social group, socio-economic grroup, sexual orientation, hobbies, family, etc.. And there’s nothing wrong about feeling a connection to these groups, feeling a sense of camaradarie, feeling pride in your identity. There’s also nothing wrong for a certain group to work together or want to spend time together. The problems start when groups start feeling that the group’s sense of self is turned against another group violently. But why does it happen?
3) It happens when people fear that one of the identities is threatened. A Shia Iraqi and a Sunni Iraqi can live next to each other in peace (although I’m not saying they have). The religious identities might be relatively unimportant for them of the multitude of their identities. But if the Shia or the Sunni or both feel that their religous group is threatened or disregarded, that identity becomes more and more important to them as the sense of threat increases. But why is there a threat.
4) First off, it should be noted that the threat is sometimes but not always real. It occurs because of ideologies that seek to exclude identities. I’m not talking about siuation like when a racist white who wants to exclude blacks. No, I’m talking about white supremacists wanting whites to exclude every other identity but their whiteness, to the exclusion of other identities, like their humanity. In Iraq there are several identities and to each one there is somebody seeking to make it exclusive and turn it against others: You have islam — radical Islamism, Shia sect — Shiite political groups, Arab — Pan-Arabism, local Iraqi — Iraqi nationalism, and then also city, tribe, etc.
5) Some people come and say, why not everybody adopt some other overarching identity — Iraqi, in the case of Iraq. But if you cross the line from offering it as another identity to the point of presenting it as an exclusive identity, all you are doing is threatening people’s other identities and creating another oppressive ideology. The US is better in that sense because — some of the time — it accepts that people can be Irish-American, African-American, Arab-American, and so on. In Europe people started getting nervous that immigrants, mostly Muslim, will undermine the Frenchness, Britishness, Dutchness of their nation-states. How they reacted, by starting to attack an external symbol of the Muslim identity, the female head scarf, which more Muslims started wearing because they feared their Islamic identity is threatened.
So what I’m saying is that people have to learn to live with their own and others multiple identities in a kind of mutual respect.
Liberals and conservatives can argue and disagree on this blog. But when someone — let’s call him Robert — comes and start talking about YOU (liberals) in a disrespectful way, and presents his political identity as absolute, then liberals rise to defend their identity and a conflict ensues.
Posted by Rick Keating
I’m not sure if i’ve told this story here before, but it fits so well after that, that i can’t resist:
My Dad was on the Vestry at our church (a then) small Episcopal parish in the wilds of South Carolina, a place (and a time) where it wasn’t that uncommon for some people to ask “Is that Christian?” if you said you went to an Episcopal church.
One of the other Vestry members (with whom my Dad got along very well) was a retired Marine Colonel (his wife was a retired Marine major) and a bit, shall we say, conservative.
One day they were talking about something, and politics came up, and theColonel asked Dad “Have you ever voted for anyone for President that wasn’t a Democrat?”, and Dad said, yeah, he just couldn’t vote for McGovern.
The Colonel, rather surprised, said “So you voted for Nixon?” and Dad said “Nah, I voted for Gus Hall.”
Posted by Craig J. Ries
Pat Tillman, based on how he died and the military’s refusal to learn a lesson and the Army’s attempts to cover it up and make it a Heroic Last Stand, instead of “friendly fire” from poorly trained, panicked troops, died for less than nothing.
Posted by Craig J. Ries
“Pat Tillman, based on what has happened in Afghanistan in the last several years, died for nothing.”
Pat Tillman died for two things
1) On a personal level, his love of country and how he chose to show it.
2) On a political level, as a rallying cry. “Pat tillman gave up an NFL career to protect freedom and died in a blaze of glory. Hollywood version to follow.”
3) On a cultural level, either as a Sainted Hero of the War and Martyr to the Cause, or as a Victim of National Hubris.
Discuss among yourselves.
Before you all jump, I know, it’s three things, I gotta get to work. I’m hanging my head. So sorry.
Pat Tillman died because he waved to Americans, and they shot him.
The army knew it, yet didn’t tell his family until after the 2004 election.
Discuss.
Pat Tillman’s death is proof that there’s no tragedy that this administration won’t exploit, even lie about, if it can give them some political advantage.
Of course, we knew that after watching them shamelessly exploit 9/11 at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Dear PAD,
In my humble opinion, the actor Robert Preston’s best line was “There’s nothing more inconvenient than an old queen with a head cold.” Victor/Victoria remains one of my very favorite films. Also, Sunset by Blake Edwards. Make of that what you will.
As you are the overseer of this website, and thus responsible for all it’s postings, I will try to keep the discourse civil. Have I at any time called anyone “Jimmy”, or “Mikey” or “Billy” or “Moonbeam”? No. Believe me, Mr. Meyers, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Mulligan and the rest will have to do better than that. I’m married, nothing scares me anymore. She Who Must Be Obeyed, won’t let me be afraid of anything else. That’s why I love her.
As I have said, I’m new to this form of communication, and still fine it somewhat unconventional, but I have read your site for a couple of years now (decades, by Marvel time.) and only recently felt the need to address certain issues that you keep bringing up. If my recent postings to your site were unwelcome by you, let me know. I’ll make sure to “never darken our (your)towels again.”
As a parting conversational shot, because I’m not sure that anything prior should be answered, what do you think is the most important sentence ever written?
That could open a can of worms.
Yours truly,
Robert T. Preston
“Wash your hands before handling food.”
Robert, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I’m going to assume that you don’t mean to be a prìçk.
It is infantile in the extreme to complain about my choice to refer to you as “Bobby” after you insulted the patriotism and character of everyone who participates in this blog. If you can’t see how or why that would be insulting to people, you really should spend some time in introspection before posting again.
If you are really sincere about wanting to share ideas and not cause trouble, the first thing you should do is apologize to everyone for making unwarranted assumptions about them. The next thing you should do is stop making such assumptions. Recognize how much there is that you don’t know… that you canNOT know… about the people who post here. Treat people like individuals, regardless of their ideology. Look past your prejudices and bigotries (and I’m sorry, but you have a LOT of them).
Show some humility. Stop “puffing out your chest” and trying to look tough. Real “toughness” comes not from insulting people as you have done, but from having the strength of chracter to recongize that just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re a bad person.
If you choose instead to keep posting the way you have been, then I will permanently “shroud” you and encourage others to do the same. In case you’re unfamiliar with the term, it basically means “ignore.”
I’ve only had to consign two other people to my personal “ignore list” in all the time I’ve been posting here. It takes a lot to turn me off to someone so completely that I will not respond to them in any way, shape, nor form. Basically, you have to be really, really, reeeallllyyy obnoxious, while adding nothing of value to the conversation.
Which, I’m sorry to say, describes you to a “tee” thus far. If you have more to offer, offer it. You might be surprised at how rewarding it will be for you.
It should also be added, Mr. Preston, that PAD is very open about what you are allowed to post in this blog, with only a few reservations I’m aware of. So you are certainly entitled to continue writing the same way you have so far. But this does not obligate anybody, certainly not PAD himself, to read your posts or to engage you in serious or not serious conversation if they do not find such conversation worthwhile. So, you are free to write to your heart’s content, but there’s no guaentee that you’ll be welcome. That depends on PAD and on any other individual reader’s point of view.
I’d like to offer some additional thoughts vis-a-vis morality and societal change.
It is true that those who would oppress others and those who would combat that oppression both claim for themselves the mantle of morality and courage. So, morality and courage must be a fiction, correct?
Nope.
“Ideas” cannot change the world on their own. Ideas are abstractions until they are made real by our actions. Progress is made by progressive individuals who have the courage and moral fiber to stand up against a majority that seeks to jealously guard the status quo, often violently.
It is absurd and just plain silly to think that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers didn’t need courage to stand up to the white majority in this country, to cite a relatively recent example of progressives who effected positive change. It is absurd to think that morality had nothing to do with it.
How, then, can we distinguish between those who would oppress in the name of morality… and those who would fight oppression in the name of that same concept?
The rational part of the human brain — the cortex — sits on top of a more primitive part of the brain often referred to as “the serprent brain.” The serpent brain is instinctual — and powerful. The rational mind will bow to our baser instincts unless we consciously choose to do otherwise. That’s why throughout human history many ideologies, philosophies, and religions have merely been the codification and rationalization of our baser instincts.
The concept of morality has evolved over time, as human beings have come to distinguish between what we want on an instinctual level… and what is truly right. It takes courage to fight that battle within… and then take that battle to the outside world.
Bill, people have been debating morality for millenia. It’s difficult. But you are correct, moral relativism is not the answer, it’s a cop-out. This is not the way humans work.
Morality is a choice, an act of judgement, people make it all the time. Althogh a racist and a a civil rights activist might both claim to be moral, it is our ability to meaningfully participate and make our own choice in this debate — that it is not meaningless and empty for us — which makes us human. In other words, morality is not a fiction but a fact of human existence. And althogh we do not always agree about morality, it is mutually intelligible to us. We can understand each other’s moral statements.
Martin Luther King was able to convey and convince America that segrgation was immoral, and to get that point accross because peoole understood what he was saying.
Micha, I would also argue that while issues of morality have indeed been debated for millennia with few, if any, easy answers having been arrived at, we are closer to coming to a consensus in many areas than we were before. Hence my examples of changing societal attitudes towards slavery and genocide, once widely accepted practices that are now largely considered immoral.
I think there are some issues of morality where we can’t… and perhaps shouldn’t… ever be able to come to a universal agreement. But some issues are big enough that I believe eventually… with enough courage and moral fiber… we can recognize what is right and act on it.
If you’re going to ask this question publicly: the only virtue of hypocrisy is to shelter a predatory agenda. It seems unmatched in that regard.
If this were true, we could will ourselves to never sleep again, never eat or drink again, never empty our bladder or our bowels.
“The rational mind will bow to our baser instincts unless we consciously choose to do otherwise.
If this were true, we could will ourselves to never sleep again, never eat or drink again, never empty our bladder or our bowels.”
The examples you list are not baser instincts, they are necessary functions of the human body. Instincts are behavior or emotional responses.
“”The rational mind will bow to our baser instincts unless we consciously choose to do otherwise.
If this were true, we could will ourselves to never sleep again, never eat or drink again, never empty our bladder or our bowels.”
The examples you list are not baser instincts, they are necessary functions of the human body. Instincts are behavior or emotional responses.”
And anyway, humans don’t satisy bodily needs like that whenever they feel them. They often delay their fullfilment because of considerations of the rational mind. People diet or fast for religious or medical or social reasons, doctors continue working for hours after their bodies need sleep, and people hold their bladder until they can get to a bathroom for obvious social reasons.
…never dance or play music again, never have sex for pleasure or mášŧûrbáŧë again, never kiss again, never laugh again…
The definition instinct does not exclude necessary functions.
Citing the practicality of hunger and fatigue does not make them any less instincts. If anything, you confirm what I say.
As far as any indulgence is “bowing,” taking the quote I cited literally means having the option to abstain indefinitely.
“Posted by: Micha at March 22, 2007 07:55 PM
Posted by: Mike at March 22, 2007 08:14 PM “
DO you 2 think that you might be getting “drives” (Drive reduction theory) confused with instincts?
As far as my posts make sense as they stand — not me.
Posted by: Megan at March 22, 2007 08:25 PM
“DO you 2 think that you might be getting “drives” (Drive reduction theory) confused with instincts?”
Megan, I wasn’t really thinking about any specific definition, just responding to the post. When Bill Myers was talking about baser instincts I assume he wasn’t talking about hunger, need of sleep etc. His intention, I think, was closer to what Chadwick was talking about. Mike was reading it differently, and mentioned hunger, thirst etc. which caused me to point out that the rational mind also imposes restrained in these cases sometimes. (It is no surprise that mystics try to control them). Although, I don’t think that was Bill’s initial point.
Regretably I don’t know enough about psychology to know about drive reduction theory. Sounds interesting.
Posted by: Mike at March 22, 2007 08:14 PM
“taking the quote I cited literally means having the option to abstain indefinitely.”
How about instead of taking the quote literally you try to explain what Bill was trying to say and engage him in that level. It might be more rewarding for both of you.
Small but important correction:
How about instead of taking the quote literally you try to understand what Bill was trying to say and engage him on that level. It might be more rewarding for both of you.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Why don’t you ask Bill to rephrase, instead of asking me to read his mind?
Chadwick offered no alternate interpretation of “baser instinct” incompatible with mine.
Every schoolkid in America is taught that an instinct is behavior that does not need to be taught. Newborns require no lessons in eating, sleeping, or filling their diapers — what instinct is more base than these?
Posted by: Mike at March 22, 2007 10:29 PM
“Why don’t you ask Bill to rephrase, instead of asking me to read his mind?”
I didn’t find his words unclear. But if they are unclear to you and you feel a need for clarification, he might be willing to rephrase. He’s a pretty nice guy that way. But then again, you’re a pretty smart guy, so I doubt you actually didn’t understand the point he was trying to make.
So exactly which ideologies, philosophies and religions are the codification and rationalization of the need to sleep, eat or drink, or empty the bladder or bowels, then?
Posted by: Doug Atkinson at March 22, 2007 10:40 PM
“So exactly which ideologies, philosophies and religions are the codification and rationalization of the need to sleep, eat or drink, or empty the bladder or bowels, then?”
I can give you three examples I know of off the top of my head.
In Orthodox Judaism people say a small prayers before eating, drinking, and emptying the bladder or bowels, and I think at waking up. And of course there are foods that are forbidden.
Some Christians pray before going to sleep.
In Western Christian monasteries (at least in the middle ages) there was a very specific codification of sleeping hours and the diet, with the purpose of denying bodily needs. Monks in the middle ages talked a lot about how the food tasted bad and how tired they were because of the hours spent praying.
As I took him at his word, neither did I.
As sleeping, eating, drinking, and bladder and bowel movements are our most basic instincts, they require no codification or rationalization.
“instinct, n.
a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity
a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level
The definition instinct does not exclude necessary functions.”
The words RESPONSE and REACTION in that definition certainly does. How someting RESPONDS to a function is instinctual, the function itself is not. The functions are the environmental stimuli, not the instinct itself.
That is what I meant.
As sleeping, eating, drinking, and bladder and bowel movements are our most basic instincts, they require no codification or rationalization.
So you concede that if somebody referred to codifying or rationalizing something, then there’d be no reason to think they were referring to sleeping, eating, drinking, or emptying the bladder or bowels, then.
“Posted by: Bill Myers at March 22, 2007 03:27 PM
Micha, I would also argue that while issues of morality have indeed been debated for millennia with few, if any, easy answers having been arrived at, we are closer to coming to a consensus in many areas than we were before. Hence my examples of changing societal attitudes towards slavery and genocide, once widely accepted practices that are now largely considered immoral.
I think there are some issues of morality where we can’t… and perhaps shouldn’t… ever be able to come to a universal agreement. But some issues are big enough that I believe eventually… with enough courage and moral fiber… we can recognize what is right and act on it.”
I hope you’re right Bill. My point is that although humans do not always agree about issues of morality, they share the same or at least similar basic vocabulary or alphabet of morality, and are able to understand each other when talking about morality, with the exception of sociopaths. It could be said that hmanity has spend eons having a very long discussion about morality. I don’t know how close we are to consensus, but we should hope at least to learn to talk more quietly and respctfully.
“no lessons in eating, sleeping, or filling their diapers Mike at March 22, 2007 10:38 PM”
It could be argued that hunger, thirst etc are “drives”. The behaviour to reduce them is instinctual. At least that was my understanding of the hierarchial nature of drive reduction.
Eating and sleeping are RESPONSES to hunger and fatigue. As newborn babies REACT to hunger and fatigue by eating and sleeping, eating and sleeping are the most basic instincts we have.
I don’t concede we require instruction to consume nourishment and sleep upon exiting the womb, if that’s what you’re asking
As eating and sleeping are the instinctual behavior that reduces the drives of hunger and fatigue, your analysis works for me.
If I’ve said anything incompatible with this, I will rephrase for anyone who requires it.
However the filling the nappy (diaper) is neither. It’s simply a reflex response to pressure.
Posted by: Megan:
“It could be argued that hunger, thirst etc are “drives”. The behaviour to reduce them is instinctual. At least that was my understanding of the hierarchial nature of drive reduction.”
“However the filling the nappy (diaper) is neither. It’s simply a reflex response to pressure.”
Well, this discussion has taken a weird turn.
Megan, you’re a parent so you know that:
Hunger is an involuntary physical sensation. Eating is a voluntary action motivated by the drive to sate hunger. Babies know how to eat by instinct. But as they grow up they learn to eat with utensils and on certain hours.
Feeling the need to empty one’s bladder and bowels is also a physicasl sensation. The need to relieve one’s self is a drive. Doing so is a voluntary action that babies and animals do instinctualy. Although the physical body has its limitations, and there are times when these things are done involuntarily. But ordinarily as people grow up they learn to rationaly control these functions and drives, in the constraint of the limitations of the human body. we call it potty training.
I don’t think sleeping is a voluntary action. Wanting to go to sleep is a drive. I think animals have an instinctual knowledge of ‘going to sleep’ (they do not simply faint). I’m not sure about babies — do they have a process of going to sleep, or do they simply fall asleep when they are tired, like parents in front of late night TV. As babies grow into children they learn to rationalize the process of going to sleep with nap hours and bed times, although you can’t rationalize falling asleep without the help of chemicals.
But this was not the point of Bill’s initial discussion, as I’m certain you know. These may be instincts, but not the only things that fall under the heading ‘instincts’, and it is not what someone usually means when he or she is talking about ‘baser insticts.’
It was also not what Mike said in the beginning:
“If this were true, we could will ourselves to never sleep again, never eat or drink again, never empty our bladder or our bowels.”
This statement is not only talking about the instinctual knowledge of how to voluntarily eat, drink, sleep, and empty one’s bowels — which, like I said, can be controled by rational learned behavior — it is talking about completely suppressing the physical need to do so. Some mystics tried to acheive that as the final victory of mind over matter, and they are successful to a point, but I doubt if this is an completely attainable goal. But the fact that they are trying is interesting in itself from a social point of view, which was Bill Myers’s original topic. But he was talking about controlling other insticts. However when Christian monks tried to control the drive to eat and sleep they did so because they wanted to control their their moral life. They also tried to control their basic instincts like anger and arrogance, and believed that by controling the first they will learn to control the second.
Posted by: Megan:
“It could be argued that hunger, thirst etc are “drives”. The behaviour to reduce them is instinctual. At least that was my understanding of the hierarchial nature of drive reduction.”
“However the filling the nappy (diaper) is neither. It’s simply a reflex response to pressure.”
Well, this discussion has taken a weird turn.
Megan, you’re a parent so you know that:
Hunger is an involuntary physical sensation. Eating is a voluntary action motivated by the drive to sate hunger. Babies know how to eat by instinct. But as they grow up they learn to eat with utensils and on certain hours.
Feeling the need to empty one’s bladder and bowels is also a physicasl sensation. The need to relieve one’s self is a drive. Doing so is a voluntary action that babies and animals do instinctualy. Although the physical body has its limitations, and there are times when these things are done involuntarily. But ordinarily as people grow up they learn to rationaly control these functions and drives, in the constraint of the limitations of the human body. we call it potty training.
I don’t think sleeping is a voluntary action. Wanting to go to sleep is a drive. I think animals have an instinctual knowledge of ‘going to sleep’ (they do not simply faint). I’m not sure about babies — do they have a process of going to sleep, or do they simply fall asleep when they are tired, like parents in front of late night TV. As babies grow into children they learn to rationalize the process of going to sleep with nap hours and bed times, although you can’t rationalize falling asleep without the help of chemicals.
But this was not the point of Bill’s initial discussion, as I’m certain you know. These may be instincts, but not the only things that fall under the heading ‘instincts’, and it is not what someone usually means when he or she is talking about ‘baser insticts.’
It was also not what Mike said in the beginning:
“If this were true, we could will ourselves to never sleep again, never eat or drink again, never empty our bladder or our bowels.”
This statement is not only talking about the instinctual knowledge of how to voluntarily eat, drink, sleep, and empty one’s bowels — which, like I said, can be controled by rational learned behavior — it is talking about completely suppressing the physical need to do so. Some mystics tried to acheive that as the final victory of mind over matter, and they are successful to a point, but I doubt if this is an completely attainable goal. But the fact that they are trying is interesting in itself from a social point of view, which was Bill Myers’s original topic. But he was talking about controlling other insticts. However when Christian monks tried to control the drive to eat and sleep they did so because they wanted to control their their moral life. They also tried to control their basic instincts like anger and arrogance, and believed that by controling the first they will learn to control the second.
To make things clearer, the “instinct” that is most germane to this discussion is the instinct to fear that which is different. I believe that instinct to be at the root of most, if not all, instances of oppression.
At one time, I’m sure this fear of “the other” was an adaptive trait that helped us survive. But it seems to have outlived its usefulness. Our higher-order minds give us the ability — and therefore, the obligation — to understand that surface characteristics do not a threat make.
As a reflex response, it seems to qualify as an instinct.
Anger and arrogance aren’t behaviors, and therefore aren’t instincts.
Oprah cites experts who say parents should not smother their children’s instincts to avoid people who make them uncomfortable. I think the current model is to supervise the child’s mingling with as many people as possible, so predatory behavior will stand out in contrast, for the sake of speed, on an unconscious level.
Between Oprah saying fear is a good instinct, and someone of a privileged gender and ethnicity saying fear is the root of oppression, I’m going to side with Oprah, girlfriend.
“To make things clearer, the “instinct” that is most germane to this discussion is the instinct to fear that which is different.”
Bill, I think what you were trying to say was clear to most of us, but thanks for clarifying. I wonder if the ability to pick between several possible dictionary meanings of a word based on context is an instinct.
“”I believe that instinct to be at the root of most, if not all, instances of oppression.”
Where was the phrase ‘fear is the enemy’ come from? I heard it somewhere but I don’t remeber where. It is certainly true in my part of the world.
I was in school when Daredevil 183 came out with the Punisher on the cover shooting him in the stomach. I had the issue on the desk, and my teacher said the appropriate thing: a man without fear is an idiot.
Posted by: Bill Myers at March 23, 2007 07:42 AM
“At one time, I’m sure this fear of “the other” was an adaptive trait that helped us survive. But it seems to have outlived its usefulness. Our higher-order minds give us the ability — and therefore, the obligation — to understand that surface characteristics do not a threat make.”
I recently saw the movie ‘A History of Violence’. The movie’s hero was a man with instincual — on the verge of psychpathic — killing abilities, who learned to control them. It seemed as if the message of the movie was that a certain basic, animalistic instinct is necessary despite its brutal nature. On the other extreme side of the fantasy spectrum, could we imagine a species so wholly rational that it has no such instincts? And would that species be able to defend itself againt threats without it, simply by rationally assessing the threats and dealing with them?
In the real world we probably should strike a balance between being aware of threats even on the instinctual level, and using understanding to temper our instincts.
————
I should say outright that I am fully aware of the limitations of having a discussion with Mike involved. However I find Bill Myers’s initial idea, and what Megan, Chadwick and Doug said, and to a lesser degree even some of Mike statements, to be quite interesting and worth a serious discussion. I don’t want the above mentioned limitations to prevent such a discussion. So I’m responding to the posts and issues I find interesting.
1. As the killing proficiency demonstrated in the movie was learned, it was not instinctual.
2. As he reserved his violence to saved a populated diner, and saved his own life and the life of his family, he demonstrated no indulgences of a psychopathic nature.
3. On the dvd Cronenberg and the actors mostly talk about the character rebuilding a new identity, and which identity the character really is. If the primary message of the movie was that bloodlust was necessary, the movie would have ended after he saved the diner.
The persecution of our instincts increases the vulnerability the most vulnerable segments of our population, you green-blooded Vulcan, and it should be challenged.
Here is Roger Ebert’s review of a History of Violence.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050922/REVIEWS/50919002/1023
I withdraw this under the cited definition of instinct, 2.b. While behavoir not acquired by learning is instinct, that doesn’t mean instincts can’t be learned.
Cronenberg’s words go way beyond “the message of the movie was that a certain basic, animalistic instinct is necessary despite its brutal nature.” Ebert goes into character’s familly’s shaken trust in the his identity, which seems to make the movie distinct from any other movie that can claim a Darwinian theme.
“Ebert goes into character’s familly’s shaken trust in the his identity, which seems to make the movie distinct from any other movie that can claim a Darwinian theme.”
Such as?