A Revolution in our Minds...

[Rebelde para Siempre]

I know this topic has been discussed earlier on this forum but I wanted to share an article I wrote on basically the same topic a few months ago.

A Revolution in Our Minds
by Rebelde para Siempre

Is a near perfect society possible? A perfect political system is only half of the solution to the problem of finding a perfect way of living; a way of living where every person is accepted, equal and free. A system where every man becomes joyous not from material possessions or money, but from leading a fulfilling life and knowing that he has made a difference with his small time on Earth.

I have had much debate about the nature of man. Is there two sides to man? One side, evil and selfish, and the other - a side in which man finds joy in helping his fellow man.

The sad truth is that man takes pleasure in seeing himself above others. Power corrupts even the most well intentioned individual. Wealth opens up shallow-goal opportunities - the opportunity to expand wealth and buy little trinkets which provide instant, but momentary gratification, all of which will no longer exist when a man dies. This is SELFISHNESS. A value that many dedicate their lives to.

Yet, there have been men who dedicated themselves to just causes. When a man goes to war, he goes for different reasons. Sometimes to defend his family and friends, but many times men have gone to war in the name of righteous causes. Men have fought for FREEDOM and JUSTICE. They have fought for their DIGNITY or EQUALITY. Certainly these things must mean something to humans if they are willing to die for them.

Therefore the revolution begins within ourselves. Nature's law means the strongest survive. Man, being a part of nature (whether he admits it or not) is influenced by these laws. Humans strive for power. Wealth is power. When a man is rich he feels the most powerful; that he is better than any other. It is a sad state of affairs.

But are we not MAN? Humans will no longer evolve physically because we bend the very world to our will. MAN however has a mind, he can recognize these traits within ourselves that we should evolve beyond. The only kind of evolution left is the evolution of the mind.

To create a perfect society, man first needs to change himself. Man needs to take the side of good in the struggle within himself. The fight will never end, human nature against what is actually worth fighting for.

"Inside every man is a battle between good and evil that cannot be resolved."

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Totaly correct. Good piece. A revolution begins from the inside. First change yourself than you will have the right to change others. The slogan of the a Dutch enviremental group is:"A better envirement begins by yourself". Someone plz correct my version of enveriment.

(Edited by CCCP at 5:25 pm on Dec. 25, 2002)

[Corvus Corax]

For more on the selfish nature of humans I suggest you read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins.

[Comrade Daniel]

Great piece, can't say more ;)

[Rebelde para Siempre]

Thanks guys.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Can someone tell me how to spell 'enveriment".

[Insomnia]

"ENVIROMENT"

[bluerev002]

a good piece. but, may i ask, did you write this for a specific reason? like for school? or did you just have an idea and had to write it down? eitehr way, i like it. good piece.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well writen, not so insightful, it didn't allow me to see anything in a new light, but good nevertheless.

[Rebelde para Siempre]

I wrote this just because I wanted to inform some people about 'life' and society as it is today.

I know this topic has probably been debated to death already. Just felt like sharing it.

[Totinsky]

Interesting discussion you all have going on, I like it!

About selfishness and goodness toward others, I think it’s a matter of balance. One can hardly give that which one lacks off or have never experienced at least in a conscious way. So, when we lack of this talent we go to the extremes to fulfill it which is called selfishness. Somewhere along the line in this search of caring for ourselves we get lost in an addictive cycle of satisfying ourselves which it bring us to a path of self destruction. The clue is to learn to care and love ourselves in a balanced way and once having that idea share it with others by caring for them. At least that is what it seems to me at the moment.

Another thing, I respect and honor all the people that have found the courage to defend family and societies by fighting in wars in the name of their values. However, I hate the pigs that use the courage of these honorable people to accomplish their own interest. In order to have a war you need economical resources, BIG BUCKS!!, the people who financially support wars are mostly not interested in the values of their soldiers but in the interest that they would gain by their effort which usually is money and power. That’s why I cannot trust any war no matter how honorable or holy it seems, because I know that deep deep inside there is a group of cowards with money that are manipulating those in need just to use them in a fight, as in a chess game. The only war I can believe in is here inside me... a war that would probably last until my dying day.

[redstar2000]

"Are there two sides to the nature of man?" No. Actually, there are multiple sides, depending on the social context that real men find themselves in. And, any particular act of a man will have multiple motivations, again largely dependent on social circumstances.

"The sad truth is that man takes pleasure in seeing himself above others." Well, SOME men certainly do. Others are essentially indifferent to the opinions of others. And still others find a perverse pleasure in bowing and scraping to their "superiors".

Men have been "willing to die" for freedom, justice, dignity, and equality. Not exactly; most people who go into combat don't really believe that THEY will be killed; they think it's the OTHER guy who will catch the bullet. Combat is so bad, however, that after a while some soldiers develop a kind of fatalism...they want to die both to escape their present miseries and they feel that since death is inevitable, sooner is better than later.

"Nature's law means the strongest survive." It's more complicated than that; ANY trait that promotes survival and reproductive fitness will be selected for--raw strength is just one and not necessarily the most important trait. Otherwise, the elephant and the gorilla would rule the world.

"Humans can no longer evolve physically"--true now. Once the mechanics of manipulating the genetic code are understood, the further physical evolution of humans will certainly be POSSIBLE. What direction that should take will be VERY controversial.

"Inside every man is a battle between good and evil that will never be resolved." Too pessimistic; what actually happens in the course of history is a battle between good and better...and THAT probably never will be resolved. "Perfection" is for fossils.

:cool:

[Hayduke]

Rebelde para Siempre,

It aint new to me, since I tought about the same things for a long time. Since the only argument you can't answer is " communism will never work, cause it goes against Human nature "

For a real long time I tought there wasnt any answer to this, but actually there is.

I saw certain videos about che and at a moment, I forbid managers to have relationships with secrettares. Cubans were shocked, since they never saw such a rule coming.

Che later replied, that human nature has to be changed, he said that part of the goal of the revolution was to change the men within.

[Rebelde para Siempre]

Redstar2000,

About the nature of man I am merely presenting a theory that he has two sides (I've been influenced by Taoism - Yin & Yang).

One side is his primal instinctive side. In the days of cavemen, men competed with each other for mates and for food. It was simply a case of "if I kill him, then I can take his food, take his woman, and I will have a better chance of survival and passing on my genes". Nature has no regard or recognition of 'good' or 'evil', but in today's society there are such things.

Man's old primal mentality still lingers within all of us. We get greedy, we get angry, we still use violence to solve our problems.

The other side of man is his calculating or concious (sp?) mind. The side of his mind that has reason and control. The side that can distinguish between 'good' and 'evil' because it recognises things that pure instinct doesn't. This is the side that people should embrace (when dealing with debate or conflict anyway...).

Of course men enjoy seeing themselves in a position of power. It is instinct. If you have the power, then you have opportunity, you have control over the others around you. This is how men are corrupted. However, some also enjoy being 'followers', another part of human instinct. Since we are group animals there cannot always be a struggle for power within the group, therefore some are happy with the lack of responsibility that following allows. I believe most will either be a leader or a follower, just observe your position in a circle of friends.

So as an animal man is drawn towards greed and a imcompassion, but as a human his actions are drawn by his ideals, beliefs and experience.

Also, regarding human evolution, humans will no longer actually 'evolve'. Our genes will be mutated artificially, and not because of nature's interaction.

So what I am really trying to say is that man has to fight his animal side, and listen to his reason and control. Because this animal side can never be extinguished, man will always have to deal with it, for it is a part of man always.

[redstar2000]

I understand your two-sided view of human motivations, RpS...it is part of a LONG tradition in both western and eastern philosphies.

I just think it's wrong; that real human behavior is multi-layered, proceeds from a large number of social influences of different kinds, and is only very distantly related to genetic heritage.

The idea that humans are motivated by a single or a few simple "drives" is insufficient to explain the complexity of real human behavior in real social situations.

Whenever you try to APPLY the "instinct" theory to a real situation, you immediately run into problems...because people don't behave the way you would expect them to, if that theory were true. Sometimes, they behave PARTIALLY the way the "instinct" theory would predict...which probably goes a long way to explain its historical popularity. But a partial explanation is...well, partial. And sometimes, the "instinct" theory explains nothing at all.

I think it far more useful at this point to examine REAL social situations and see what complex of motives appear to be operating; I also think that it IS these social situations that explain FAR more about human behavior than genetics.

Whether there will one day be a really well-grounded scientific explanation of human behavior in the large sense of the word is impossible to say at this point. But I don't see anything to be gained from the "instinct" theory (or, as Socrates put it, the conflict between desire and reason).

Besides which, such theories of "human nature" are normally used, sooner or later, to "prove" that communism is "impossible". To me, that's a BAD sign.

:cool:

PS: as an antidote to the two-sided theories of "human nature", I enthusiastically recommend The Mismeasure of Man by the late Stephen J. Gould. There is a very good companion piece from the feminist standpoint called, naturally enough, The Mismeasure of Woman--but I don't remember the author's name of that one.

(Edited by redstar2000 at 2:28 am on Dec. 27, 2002)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Nice and interresting discussion going on here, keep it going!!

[Pete]

I have a point. As soon as I find it I will type it.
Yes here it is. This has to do with the part where man only does stuff for his own good, and has to fight to be able to react otherwise. I agree. I try to lower my standard of living because I know that if it is so high that I can eat when I am full or have a billion electionic devices going at once or drive to the store that is 10 minutes away that someone else has to suffer. Usually I can controll my self and only eat when my body is asking for it ("He who is never hungry does not know why he eats") only use the computer for useful things (yet I play games often, but I don't watch to many movies or tv shows) and walk where ever I'm going (damn parents dropping a car off at work, or girlffriend living out of town). This is an uphill battle, as society WANTS me to consume and dispose. The three D's of captialism. I forget what they are but the third one is dispose. Demand, something Dispose thats is. Yet I keep fighting. I feel bad when I over indulge in my self. My goal in life, now, has become to live simply. Be a writer. Make enough to sustain. That kind of thing. Just use the pain of self-indulegence to force yourself towards purity. Peace Comrades.

[Rebelde para Siempre]

Crazypete,

That is exactly what I mean, everyone does it. Whether we live in a capitalist or communist society it is something that is inherent within all of us. We all have the drive to fulfill our scientific purpose of life - to populate. The action of being selfish is one that aids this purpose, no matter what way you look at things.

redstar2000,

of course man is more complex in his behaviour, thats probably what seperates us from animals. But the point I am trying to make is that a man is influenced by both sides (hence the multiple layers of man).

Let us look at a 'REAL' social situations and a man's actions.

See the reason a man goes to work. To get money. Money = Power
Money = easier living for him
Money = Women (very chauvanistic i know...)
Money = Security

All of these things that money provides boil back down to a man's natural desires.

[redstar2000]

So, ReS, WHY are we yapping at each other about stuff like this?

Don't know about you, but nobody's PAYING me.

I have no desire to be a "great leader"--which is just as well since no one is asking to follow me.

Nor have any attractive young women been kicking my door down because of the brilliance of my posts. (I think I would have NOTICED that.)

By the "instinct" theory, we SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS AT ALL. We "should" be out getting money, getting power, and impregnating as many women as we can. (right, Mr. Dawkins?)

Yet here we are...just talking. No money, no power, no women at stake; just a curiousity about the world and a desire to figure things out.

The whole point of a communist outlook is that people are JUST as capable of doing things for their intrinsic value as they are in order to achieve personal "gain". That's a motivation that capitalists and their apologists cannot understand and therefore deny.

The opposing view is that "human nature" is shit; greedy, power-mad, bloodthirsty, status-seeking, etc., etc., etc. The people who say this are now called "evolutionary biologists", before that they were called "socio-biologists", and before that they were called "social darwinists". The name has to be changed every 40 years or so, because the "science" ALWAYS gets discredited. But they DO keep trying.

Why? Because that's where the money is. Capitalism has always been in search of "scientific" vindication of their class rule; they want "proof" that their power and wealth are "deserved", a "natural product" of their inherent "superiority". And, up to now at least, there have always been "scientists" willing to take the money and tell the capitalists what they want to hear.

If there are MANY things in life that are worth doing for their own sake, would it not be a good thing to LIVE like that? We can't do it now...but tomorrow may bring a different tale. :cool:

[Pavan Sohal]

"environment"

[Rebelde para Siempre]

Well i guess that's why 'communists' are different. Keep in mind that all men are different, I am merely observing the actions of the majority.

I think the thing about the left, is that they have realised the negative actions that may arise within themselves and dispel them when they arise.

Others however, the majority i think, do not realise this and just act fairly blindly.

Just my opinion.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Rebelde para Siempre on 6:38 am on Dec. 27, 2002
Crazypete,

See the reason a man goes to work. To get money. Money = Power
Money = easier living for him
Money = Women (very chauvanistic i know...)
Money = Security

All of these things that money provides boil back down to a man's natural desires.


Funny that you mentioned it, I saw a program about it lately. It's true. It appears that women do fall on wealthy ,powerfull men.(when they are pregnant)

[redstar2000]

"...I saw a program about it lately. It's true. It appears that women do fall on wealthy, powerful men (when they are pregnant.)"

What you saw, CCCP, is called PROPAGANDA...it is NOT necessarily "true" at all. The popularization of "evolutionary biology" has a PURPOSE...we are supposed to accept as true an explanation of reality that can THEN be used to "justify" the rule of the wealthy and powerful...the capitalist class.

Do NOT believe what you see on television...nearly ALL of it is NOT TRUE!

Now, RpS, as to the behavior of the "majority" of humans, is it not obvious that men act in ways that clearly have NO connection with wealth, status, power or access to women?

How about something as simple as reading a book? NOT, of course, a book on how to make money or how to pick up girls...a book on some subject that has no bearing on your career prospects or your sex life. WHY would someone do that, if the "instinct" theory were true? And yet, tens of millions of ordinary people do it. They do it because they find it rewarding FOR ITS OWN SAKE.

If such behavior is not as common as we would wish, is that because of "human nature" or is it because we live in a class society where close attention to our economic survival and advancement is DEMANDED?

If you are hungry, the acquisition of food takes first priority. If you are cold, warmth becomes an over-riding necessity. But in a society where necessities were abundant AND freely available, what then? What would "human nature" be like in a truly HUMAN society?

Something quite different than what we see now.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:06 pm on Dec. 29, 2002)