Homo rationalis

[wvanfleet]

I have a different take. I consider science to be the ultimate of our efforts to understand the way the world is, was, or will be (existential beliefs), and therefore important to tell us what will happen if we do this or that. I consider religion to be the ultimate in helping us to decide whether we should do things or not (ethical beliefs). Science without religion is dangerous and religion without science is dangerous.

BUT, I think that our religions will gradually turn over to science the function of the development of an explanatory worldview. I think that (if we are lucky, but also if we study hard and conscientiously) we will eventually have undergone our third exponential change, making us drastically different from all other species and from the way we were before the change. (The first change was the development of the infinite ability to make use of symbols and rules of syntax. The second was the development of our ability to use the rules of logic and the rules of evidence.) These two exponential changes (language, science) have been tools in the service of our basic chimpanzee nature, so with them we do wonderful things and terrible things and all in between.

The third exponential change, when we metaphorically might label ourselves "Homo rationalis," will be our transitioning completely, globally, from authoritarian ethics to rational ethics. We will relate to each other entirely differently and we will rear our children entirely differently. We will no longer cause ourselves enormous amounts of pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED), for the first time in our history.

I have written a book about all this, noncopyrighted, free to everyone as a download (pdf) from HomoRationalis.com (http://www.HomoRationalis.com). I will never make any money from this book. I have worked on it for years. It is my gift back to my species for all it has done for me.

I am very religious, but I don't believe there is a sentient superpower or afterlife, and I do not believe in magic, pseudoscience, belief as an act of obedience, or "blind faith." I believe that "Homo rationalis" will hold accuracy of belief to be their highest value, following from the ultimate rational-ethical principle that we should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species but also the good life, for everyone, now and in the future. (The good life means as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little PSDED as possible.) Authoritarian ethics (based upon the principle that we should do whatever X wants, X being whoever or whatever is most powerful) has never given us the good life, nor will it ever. Much PSDED has resulted from it.

Well, I would be very grateful if you would download the book and critique it. Since it builds models on the basis of careful definition of terms for the purpose of the book, I would ask that you read the book in the order written, but only till you come to the first sentence that seems either incorrect or unclear in the context in which it is written. Please let me know of the sentence, because if it can't be fixed, the book fails.

Thanks.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRatonalis.com (http://www.HomoRationalis.com)

[stan2reason]

Hi Wm!

Thanks for sharing this. I'll check it out.

S2R

[phrog]

Looks like an impressive chunk of work. I'll give it a go. I hope you're coming back to join in other discussions here.

[wvanfleet]

Great!! Appreciate the interest. Please let me know, as you go along, what you think.

Emo,

What is a radical atheist? Worries me how you could be more radical than a just plain atheist.

Bill
HomoRationalis.com (http://www.HomoRationalis.com)

[phrog]

What is a radical atheist? Worries me how you could be more radical than a just plain atheist.

Bill
HomoRationalis.com (http://www.HomoRationalis.com)
A term coined by the late Douglas Adams. He didn't want any doubt as to his Atheism and disliked the term Strong Atheist. Like Adams I BELIEVE there is no god(s) and live my life as such. I do not proclaim the absolute stance that there is no god(s) but I truly have as close to no doubts what so ever as one can have. I am moderately activist with my beliefs and take a strong stand to civil rights trod upon by the god botherers.

[wvanfleet]

Thanks for the clarification.

When you said, "I BELIEVE there is no god(s) and live my life as such," I began to wonder what differences there were in how you live your life, in comparison with someone who has a non-proselytizing religious set of beliefs. What difference would inevitably be present between two individuals if one believed there is a god and one believed there is no such thing?

Thanks.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com (http://www.HomoRationalis.com)

[phrog]

I s'pose mostly it's attitude. Most of the god botherers I know approach everything with a WWJD philosophy. Much of what they do is in response to hopes for reward or fear of retribution in the afterlife. I have no such constraints. On the surface one may not see a difference. But also I have to mention I have violated 9 of the 10 comandments. Oh, the humanity!

[chasm]

The third exponential change, when we metaphorically might label ourselves "Homo rationalis," will be our transitioning completely, globally, from authoritarian ethics to rational ethics. We will relate to each other entirely differently and we will rear our children entirely differently. We will no longer cause ourselves enormous amounts of pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED), for the first time in our history.




While I'd like to be equally optimistic in viewpoint ... I just can't. It took us a million years of evolution to get to the point where we don't brain strangers with antelope thighbones on sight, simply because they 1) don't belong to the local troops, and are going to be competing for food and potential mates, and 2) aren't potential mates and are going to eat our food.

If the third exponential change is going to happen through the course of natural selection, I honestly don't think that we have enough time. We've covered up the less subtle parts of our behavior with a very thin veneer of social conduct, but we've also replaced the antelope thighbone with cluster bombs, EFPs, and tactical nukes. Our deep-seated impulses are too quick to surface, and our weaponry is too powerful. We're hairless chimps with quantum computers.

I haven't read the book yet, so it's possible that you've outlined some way of forcing evolution along certain trajectories to get to homo rationalis. In which case I've got another set of objections dealing with the selective breeding of humans, or some of the potential horrors awaiting us down the transhumanism road.

[wvanfleet]

While I'd like to be equally optimistic in viewpoint ... I just can't. It took us a million years of evolution to get to the point where we don't brain strangers with antelope thighbones on sight, simply because they 1) don't belong to the local troops, and are going to be competing for food and potential mates, and 2) aren't potential mates and are going to eat our food.

Agreed. We are talking, hi tech chimpanzees, using language and science for wonderful things and also for terrible things and all in between. We still behave, mostly, like chimpanzees, except in our own human way, with these new tools.

If the third exponential change is going to happen through the course of natural selection, I honestly don't think that we have enough time.

No, it won't be through natural selection, at least not in the usual sense. It will be because, with our new tools, we start behaving in new ways, simply because doing so will much more promote the good life (as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible), for everyone, now and in the future.

We've covered up the less subtle parts of our behavior with a very thin veneer of social conduct, but we've also replaced the antelope thighbone with cluster bombs, EFPs, and tactical nukes. Our deep-seated impulses are too quick to surface, and our weaponry is too powerful. We're hairless chimps with quantum computers.

Yes, and angry ones, because the standard model of child rearing tends to fill us with much anger, tendency toward rebellion, and even paranoia.

I haven't read the book yet, so it's possible that you've outlined some way of forcing evolution along certain trajectories to get to homo rationalis.

No, I haven't. What I have done is do my small part in promoting the third exponential change that is just beginning and hard to see, but will only occur because we understand it and do our parts in promoting it. Your cynicism and hopelessness is understandable and usual. Many believe that a favorable outcome for our species is only possible through magic, and that means the only optimists are going to be those that believe in magic. I don't believe in magic, but I am tentatively optimistic. We have a chance to save ourselves and get to a much better way of life, I believe, and if it really is possible, I can't imagine a more important project. Those that benefit from our efforts will probably not know of us, but I am already grateful for those that have made my life so much better than it would have been without their effort. I must try to return the favor, or more accurately, pay forward.

In which case I've got another set of objections dealing with the selective breeding of humans, or some of the potential horrors awaiting us down the transhumanism road.

An understandable concern. You will not find any such thing in my book.

We need to promote the emergence of a new kind of ethics (ethical beliefs, meaning ones that can be modeled with sentences containing "should," as in "I should do X," "You should...," etc.), that will change our behavior greatly, especially in the areas of anger prevention and child rearing, as discussed in the chapters on those topics. But we will also have to have a drastically different approach to legitimization of belief, and a drastically different approach to response to difference of opinion.

I hope that you will indeed read the book (in the order written) and give me your thoughts. Please just read till you come to the first sentence that seems either incorrect or unclear in the context in which it is written, and let me know of that sentence. If it can't be fixed, then the book fails. (Then I can go do something else, like practice my ballroom dancing.)

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com (http://www.homorationalis.com/)

[David]

I have violated 9 of the 10 comandments. Oh, the humanity!
Which one have you forgotten about? I do hope you have made sure to follow at LEAST the one that says not to worship any other gods?

[wvanfleet]

I have just completed a more comprehensive synopsis of what I believe, and think that it might provide some material for dialogue and debate. It is as follows:

At one time we lived more or less like chimpanzees. However, our species has undergone two exponential changes, making us drastically different from all other species, and also drastically different from the way we were before the changes took place. (By exponential I mean beginning imperceptibly, but gaining momentum and eventually accelerating markedly.)

The first exponential change was the development of the ability to use, essentially now to an infinite extent, symbols and the rules of syntax, giving us language and related phenomena. Consequently, we now have the capacity for highly intensive empathy (we can share with others our present and past experiences, feelings, wishes, fantasies, and plans in great detail) and highly effective cooperation (we can give highly detailed instructions, directions, and feedback). This new capability has been a tool in the service of our basic animal nature (everything we share with other species), so with it we do wonderful things, terrible things, and all in between.

The second exponential change was the development of the ability to use the rules of logic and the rules of evidence, giving us ultimately science and technology. Consequently, we now have the capability of developing extremely accurate models of the way the world really is (enabling us to do things that 200 years ago would have been considered magic). Again, this new tool has been in the service of our basic animal nature, so with it we are now able to protect and enhance our lives in amazing ways, but also able to distress, harm, and kill ourselves and each other, from one at a time to millions at a time.

Our basic animal nature is a product of natural selection, which has nothing to do with the quality of life. (Pain and suffering promote survival of the species the same as pleasure.) But because of the above two exponential changes, we are now able to study and understand ourselves and the world around us, and thereby able to change our behavior from that which comes naturally to that which works better, that is, promotes "the good life," by which I mean only a maximum of joy, contentment, and appreciation, and a minimum of pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED).

But we have not yet, in any global way, begun to do this except to an almost imperceptible degree. So we are talking, hi tech (and extremely angry) "chimpanzees," frequently doing what comes naturally no matter how awful the consequences. And unless we bring about this third exponential change in ourselves, such that we stop doing these awful things, we are in danger of producing a globally catastrophic amount of PSDED, with perhaps even the demise of our species, at least as we know it. The situation is increasingly urgent.

Because we have never seen what it would be like to bring about this change in ourselves to the extent to which we are now increasingly capable, we regard as silly the idea of doing so. We believe that the PSDED we cause ourselves is almost inevitable, and therefore we do not look with seriousness upon what all of us could be doing, given adequate studying, understanding, agreement, cooperation, and motivation. And to some extent, some of us believe that the best we can do is just to inflict more PSDED on others than they do on ourselves. For example, punishment and revenge are a part of our basic animal nature, and we believe in and live by them, individually, culturally, and internationally, regarding them as essential even though they often, if not always, create even more PSDED.

So what will this predicted third exponential change be like, and what can we do to promote it? Because we have never seen such a way of life, it will be hard for us to take such a prediction seriously. Yet, we must do so if we are ever to achieve such a change, because it will only happen if we understand what is necessary to bring it about and act cooperatively to do so. And it is indeed possible to get some idea of what would be involved, as follows.

First, we will have to shift (much, much more) from our naturally occurring "authoritarian ethics" to our newly emerging "rational ethics." By "ethics" I mean only that set of beliefs that can be modeled with statements containing "should" ("I, you, we should do such-and-such"). The ethics that comes to us naturally, as a group animal, is based ultimately upon the "authoritarian-ethical ultimate ethical principle" that "we should do whatever X wants, X being whoever or whatever is most powerful (parent, leader, group, deity)." This ethics, though having contributed to the survival of our species, often also promotes incredible amounts of PSDED. We are, however, very early in an accelerating shift to what ultimately will be a commitment to an ethics based upon the "rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle" that "we should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species but also the good life (defined above) for everyone, now and in the future."

And we will also need to promote the development in ourselves and our children of a much stronger, more effective "ethical sense," the motivational state produced by an ethical belief ("I want to do it because I believe I should"), such development to be discussed further below.

To the extent that we achieve this shift in our ethics, there will be enormous, initially hard to imagine, changes in how we live our daily lives, globally. If and when this change occurs, the members of our species will look back upon us (the current state of Homo sapiens) like we regard Neanderthals or even chimpanzees. So we can metaphorically give our species of the future the name, "Homo rationalis."

Second, we never accomplish anything without some degree of agreement, about how the world is and about what we should and will do. There is not a single thing (other than exceedingly trivial) that we can have or do that does not require others having done their part. So we will need to achieve agreement, globally, on certain basic ideas that will allow for successful, important decision-making. Currently, the idea of there being such consensus is considered ridiculous, as endless debating without agreement is now a universal, and even valued, phenomenon. There of course will always be a certain amount of disagreement, but much disagreement is an illusion created by imprecise, metaphorical, ambiguous use of words. And such debates are characterized frequently by hostility, distorted logic, and disorganized changing of topic, in the service of winning rather than of building consensus. So we will need to develop, for the purpose of such discussions, more rigorous use of definitions and rules of logic, and we will need to agree on the optimal ways to respond to inability to agree, including especially the avoidance of hostility.

Third, however, in order to know what we should do, we will need to have beliefs about how the world works that are as accurate as possible, so that we will make as few mistakes as possible. Currently, having long ago given up on attaining Absolute Truth, we are engaging in our postmodern devaluation of agreement ("What's true for me may not be true for you, so let's just talk about something else"). Instead, we will need to value highly the achievement of ever-increasing accuracy of our beliefs, and therefore to value highly all those methods that foster that achievement. The rules of logic and the rules of evidence will therefore be much more highly valued, as will science and education, and friendly debate as the optimal response to any perceived difference of opinion. And we will also need to develop better access to relevant, accurate data, that can be distinguished from pseudoscience.

Fourth, there will be a global awareness of an agreed upon anger-prevention paradigm, either the one I teach or one even better, because anger is our most problematic motivational state. Rather than our continuing to value anger, punishment, revenge, and skillful induction of PSDED ("fighting"), we will recognize anger as our most problematic motivational state and hostility as our most deleterious behavior. We will have a well-understood systematic approach to external anger-prevention (methods of changing a situation that is producing anger) and internal anger-prevention (methods of reducing anger being produced by a possibly unalterable situation). Of extreme importance will be the reversal of impending relationship breakdown, interpersonal to international.

Fifth, there will be a globally agreed upon model of child rearing, either the one I teach or one even better, that any parent will have been adequately trained in prior to assuming independent parenting responsibility. And this model of child rearing will be taught to all children (as a continuous part of their general education) for whom there is any possibility of eventually becoming a parent. The model will be based upon principles involving a marked diminution (and effort to avoid completely) the punishing of children for making mistakes. This avoidance of punishment will be because of the recognition of its production of low self-esteem, demoralization, anxiety, and anger that is often manifested by cruelty, destructiveness, and rebellion (overt defiance, passive-aggression, and/or sneakiness), all of which undermine the development of a strong ethical sense. The model will also be based on principles involving much more effective methods of rewarding, teaching, and modeling for identification, that will foster, not blind obedience, but wisdom, capacity for ethical reasoning, and the development of a basic ethical philosophy, accompanied by a strong ethical sense, that promotes the development of the child into a competent, healthy, productive, and confident adult capable of contributing reliably to the welfare of society.

Sixth, there will be universal awareness of general principles of belief management, beliefs being the most important modifiable determinant of decision-making, or behavior, as well as of pleasant and unpleasant motivational states, which in turn affect the individual's health and quality of life in general. Not only will accuracy of belief be valued and promoted, but also the specific individual and societal methods of acquiring such accuracy of belief. Education, mental hygiene, friendly debate, openness of mind, and accuracy of communication will all be considered essential for the good life. In addition, the management of belief-like states, not for the purpose of decision-making but instead for the purpose of comfort, stress management, and optimal emotional functioning, will be much better understood and practiced.

Seventh, there will be, I predict, world government based upon a hierarchical structure of small groups, each one representative of those below, such that everyone will have a place in decision-making at the appropriate level. Thus, each representative sent from a group to a higher level group will be chosen to do so by those that know the individual best. And there will be mechanisms and procedures that assure that all decision-making is open to scrutiny, just as all knowledge, opinions, and debates will be available to all. And although undoubtedly there will always be individuals that need varying degrees of supervision, this will be accompanied by a thoroughly non-punitive, understanding approach to such individuals, that aids those individuals in maximally working toward their potential for good. Government will be appreciated as the source and method of optimal large group decision-making, rather than regarded as a clandestine, non-responsive, self-serving organization at odds with the welfare of the individual.

Eighth, their religion(s) will, I predict, have the primary function of helping them to arrive at the optimal way of living life (promoting personal ethical beliefs that are consistent with the rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle, defined above), having turned over to science the function of attaining the most accurate set of existential beliefs (about the way the world is, was, or will be). Each individual will be encouraged to develop his or her own basic ethical philosophy, dependent upon ethical principles and the person's idiosyncratic life situation and personal characteristics. And there will be an awareness of the importance of the integration of science and religion, one without the other being indeed dangerous. And the religion(s) will supplement and augment a basic social support system for all that are in need of such. The religions, I predict, will optimize from within themselves, gradually putting to rest their less desirable and outmoded ideas, and gradually adding ideas more consistent with the rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle (defined above).

I feel committed to doing all I can to promote this third exponential change. I have had such a wonderful life because of the efforts of countless individuals all throughout the history of our species who have tried to make the world a better place within their sphere of influence and within the limits of their capabilities. I wish similarly to give back to my species whatever I can in order to continue this effort, out of gratitude and appreciation for all my species has done for me. I look to you, the reader, if you believe that I have identified a possible way of helping us to have a much better life in the future, to join me in this effort, by further studying these ideas, debating them with others, and, if they still seem correct, advocating for them. As more and more do so, this third exponential change, that I believe has already begun to accelerate noticeably, will progress even faster. And each individual who participates in this effort should not only see a significant improvement in his or her own life and in the lives of those within his or her sphere of influence, but he or she should also be able to feel good about what he or she is doing for many, many people in the future. I believe there can be no greater satisfaction regarding the expenditure of one’s life.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

[minorwork]

Where is there room for the five perversions lust, greed, anger, attachment, and vanity? Does your utopia eliminate them? How?

The last two days in Illinois' newspapers cover the story that the average tests evaluating math and reading skills have dropped an average of 4%.
There has been a call for a state audit of the tests conclusions. Is it the test that is responsible for the lower scores or are the test takers abilities reduced. Do you hope for a society such as in the sci-fi movie Gattica, where genetics determined a person worthy of education to the detriment of personal freedom?

[wvanfleet]

Where is there room for the five perversions lust, greed, anger, attachment, and vanity? Does your utopia eliminate them? How?


You and I speak a different language, I'm afraid. I don't know why you refer to this list of labels as "perversions." I can tell you what they mean to me.

lust - sexual arousal, part of our basic animal nature, without which we would not be here

greed - desire that is not approved of by the person using the word

anger - part of our basic animal nature, a motivational state that motivates hostile behavior, one of our most problematic behaviors

attachment - part of our basic animal nature, making it possible for us to be a group animal

vanity - excessive preoccupation with one's physical attractiveness to others, or perhaps excessive preoccupation with social status, a result of cultural victimization

I do not call the way of life that we may, if we are lucky, come to have in the future, that I refer to as the time of "Homo rationalis," as a utopia. That term is a subtle put down, I fear, of the concept. The definition of "utopia," as it is commonly used, implies an impossible situation predicted by someone misguided by naivete. I believe that it is possible for us to learn to behave better than we do. It will be by virtue of more and more people taking responsibility for working for the change, knowing what is involved. The primary obstacle is the belief that it can never happen, which leads people to refrain from even studying the issue.

The "utopia" that you refer to is simply one in which we have a far better model of child rearing and a greater ethical sense associated with that rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle (described in the previous post).


The last two days in Illinois' newspapers cover the story that the average tests evaluating math and reading skills have dropped an average of 4%.
There has been a call for a state audit of the tests conclusions. Is it the test that is responsible for the lower scores or are the test takers abilities reduced. Do you hope for a society such as in the sci-fi movie Gattica, where genetics determined a person worthy of education to the detriment of personal freedom?

No, I hope for a society that is committed to doing that which will promote not only the survival of our species but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future, and by "good life" I mean only maximal joy, contentment, and appreciation and minimal pain, suffering, disability, and early death.

If you really want to know what I believe, there is no substitute for reading the book. But I am fully aware that your basic belief that we cannot become a lot better than we currently are makes it not worthwhile to you to spend the time reading it. To me, that is a sad but understandable fact of life. My hope is that there will be some people who will indeed consider it worthwhile to explore the idea seriously, and that they, after concluding the ideas have merit, will then advocate that others do so also. I, having written the book, cannot effectively advocate for it for obvious reasons.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com (http://www.HomoRationalis.com)

[minorwork]

Yes language is problematic. I've been underground in the midst of a Deadwood type of colorful language for 31 years but this is not an unsurmountable barrier to communications. But we must be careful.

I use "lust" as meaning an obsessive addiction. Not just to sex. Eating. Gambling. Work addiction. Drugs. Telling dirty jokes.(my favorite), etc. The antidote is chastity, continence, moderation. The others have their antidotes also.
Anger. Prevents concentration by stirring up strife, causing confusion and scattering the mind. Antidote is forgiveness, tolerance. Example: consider when speaking, "Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?"
Greed. Baser than lust. An enslaving to profits. Driving out pity, love, and kindness. Antidote is giving thought for only what man needs and contentment.
Attachment blinds you to the relative values of your surroundings and associations so that you may begin to set a strong valuation upon them. After you have become quite absorbed in them, then you will have no time for anything else. No time for self improvement. No time for charitable work until you die. The king of procrastination. Antidote is discrimination, detachment.
Vanity, ego, pride. Well this is what has thrust self consciousness out of the world. Self-differentiation. The I. This is necessary but can grow by feasting on others failures. By some conquering of the other passions the ego becomes inflated. Ex smoker or someone who has lost weight are susceptible. Parents expecially vulnerable to vanity. It can never see its own imperfections. Antidote is humility. Not a pretended humility that can be unconscious.

I should have spent maybe 2 or 3 pages on each. And I guess you could do the same.

I am about half way thru your book. I am giving it a go. I promised you I would after I first read your post at the national atheist meetup message board. It looks like a technical masterpiece but, gee whiz, I thought the state of Georgia was dry. I started another book at the same time as yours. I cannot help but drawing comparisons to my friend Dr. Jerry Burgener's first book; Desert Journey. I reviewed it in the arts and media topic here at gnawed. He expounds his vision in novel form as will be his future volumes. I became very emotional shortly into it. Of course cool and dry has its place. So do emotionless law books. I must have passion to advocate. My passion is drawn from me by books in novel form. I know you could do this with your work.

In reading your book I continually look for indications of a transition phase and what would convince a mother or family that they are not raising their children in a eutopian manner. And, yes, I was out of line calling your vision utopian though I must plead a hurried ignorance, no put down intended. Thanks for helping expand my horizons on the various variations. I hope eutopian more accurate being that it indicates not fictional .

I definitely feel the need for child rearing revisions. You preach to the choir here. I am most curious how to convince my ex at the time I was married to her, and after, that letting the son and daughter sleep with her to past age 10 is wrong. And other things. She called Department of children and family services on me when they did not live with me. I received satisfaction when they noted the incident as a harrassment on her part.

I don't think she will read your book but I am always alert for techniques that might convince her she does not do best for her children. I admire your confidence and maybe you could make headway with her but I think it would be one of those Ultimate Fighting matches, so to speak. I know I'd pay money to watch. I tired of the legal hassles. And I admit fault for not pursuing custody but would not do different as I kept her happy with money by working my balls off in the mine. I tried to rally for your position, though I did not know it at the time, but I failed in furthering your goal when she would bring legal threats to bear. I gotta finish your book.


If you really want to know what I believe, there is no substitute for reading the book. But I am fully aware that your basic belief that we cannot become a lot better than we currently are makes it not worthwhile to you to spend the time reading it. To me, that is a sad but understandable fact of life.

I am glad you are fully aware of my basic beliefs as you must then know that I have a firm policy of flexibility. I must. You and I think we speak the same language and we still misunderstand intent and, I think, indicate offense in conversation.

Now I feel you have probed for my patterns by bringing up straw man examples of my intent and beliefs. Perhaps I was probing yours. I try to let my partner in dialogue know that I probe. Probe for anger. Resentment. Thus testing for insight in the Hegelian manner of looking for identity in difference. I am honored by your input. Much love.

[wvanfleet]

Minorwork,

Yes language is problematic. I've been underground in the midst of a Deadwood type of colorful language for 31 years but this is not an unsurmountable barrier to communications. But we must be careful.

I use "lust" as meaning an obsessive addiction. Not just to sex. Eating. Gambling. Work addiction. Drugs. Telling dirty jokes.(my favorite), etc. The antidote is chastity, continence, moderation. The others have their antidotes also.
Anger. Prevents concentration by stirring up strife, causing confusion and scattering the mind. Antidote is forgiveness, tolerance. Example: consider when speaking, "Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?"
Greed. Baser than lust. An enslaving to profits. Driving out pity, love, and kindness. Antidote is giving thought for only what man needs and contentment.
Attachment blinds you to the relative values of your surroundings and associations so that you may begin to set a srong valuation upon them. After you have become quite absorbed in them, then you will have no time for anything else. No time for self improvement. No time for charitable work until you die. The king of procrastination. Antidote is discrimination, detachment.
Vanity, ego, pride. Well this is what has thrust self consciousness out of the world. Self-differentiation. The I. This is necessary but can grow by feasting on others failures. By some conquering of the other passions the ego becomes inflated. Ex smoker or someone who has lost weight are susceptible. Parents expecially vulnerable to vanity. It can never see its own imperfections. Antidote is humility. Not a pretended humility that can be unconscious.

I should have spent maybe 2 or 3 pages on each. And I guess you could do the same.


Yes.


I am about half way thru your book. I am giving it a go. I promised you I would after I first read your post at the national atheist meetup message board. It looks like a technical masterpiece but, gee whiz, I thought the state of Georgia was dry.
I am very impressed and grateful. It is indeed a textbook, rather than an inspirational book. However, my belief is that if a person reads it conscientiously, it will be inspiring by the end of the reading.

I ask people to read only till they come to the first sentence that seems either incorrect or unclear in the context in which it is written, and then hopefully to let me know of that sentence, because if such a sentence is found, and if it can't be fixed, then the book fails.
I started another book at the same time as yours. I cannot help but drawing comparisons to my friend Dr. Jerry Burgener's first book; Desert Journey. I reviewed it in the arts and media topic here at gnawed. He expounds his vision in novel form as will be his future volumes. I became very emotional shortly into it. Of course cool and dry has its place. So do emotionless law books. I must have passion to advocate. My passion is drawn from me by books in novel form. I know you could do this with your work.
Not really. At least I don't think so. Maybe I will change my mind.


In reading your book I continually look for indications of a transition phase and what would convince a mother or family that they are not raising their children in a eutopian manner.

The chapter on child rearing presents the model of child rearing that I teach parents who are having the usual problems that can occur with the standard model, and although it takes much study and discussion on their part, when they do it there are major improvements in their children's behavior and apparent feeling state. And family life improves significantly. My point is that we, you and I, can right now do much to help. But it has to make sense, to others than just me.

And, yes, I was out of line calling your vision utopian though I must plead a hurried ignorance, no put down intended. Thanks for helping expand my horizons on the various variations. I hope eutopian more accurate being that it indicates not fictional .

I definitely feel the need for child rearing revisions. You preach to the choir here. I am most curious how to convince my ex at the time I was married to her, and after, that letting the son and daughter sleep with her to past age 10 is wrong. And other things. She called Department of children and family services on me when they did not live with me. I received satisfaction when they noted the incident as a harrassment on her part.

I don't think she will read your book but I am always alert for techniques that might convince her she does not do best for her children. I admire your confidence and maybe you could make headway with her but I think it would be one of those Ultimate Fighting matches, so to speak. I know I'd pay money to watch. I tired of the legal hassles. And I admit fault for not pursuing custody but would not do different as I kept her happy with money by working my balls off in the mine. I tried to rally for your position, though I did not know it at the time, but I failed in furthering your goal when she would bring legal threats to bear. I gotta finish your book.

I am sorry you have had to go through all that. I know how painful those conflicts can be, and how the children can become ammunition.

Regarding her and my book, I don't think there will be benefit in trying to convince her of something you have read. But you can indeed learn the principles of rational-ethical child rearing, with benefit to the children, and your serving as a model may help her to consider alternatives.


If you really want to know what I believe, there is no substitute for reading the book. But I am fully aware that your basic belief that we cannot become a lot better than we currently are makes it not worthwhile to you to spend the time reading it. To me, that is a sad but understandable fact of life.


I am glad you are fully aware of my basic beliefs as you must then know that I have a firm policy of flexibility. I must. You and I think we speak the same language and we still misunderstand intent and, I think, indicate offense in conversation.

We may be speaking different languages, in a sense. We could imagine two people having a conversation but running into difficulty because they speak two entirely different languages, except that each of the two languages has the same sounding and the same spelled words. Well, because our words generally have multiple definitions, and are used differently in different contexts by different people, the situation is a little bit the same. That is why, I believe, that we humans have such difficulty agreeing with each other. Much disagreement is an illusion created by the fact that the same sentence will mean different things to different people. That is why I use the method I do in the book. Key words are carefully defined, and used in a consistent manner throughout the book. I have not seen this done in any other books other than textbooks, manuals, etc. In other words, I have not seen it done in a book addressing the topic or topics I address in the book.


Now I feel you have probed for my patterns by bringing up straw man examples of my intent and beliefs. Perhaps I was probing yours. I try to let my partner in dialogue know that I probe. Probe for anger. Resentment. Thus testing for insight in the Hegelian manner of looking for identity in difference. I am honored by your input. Much love.
I very much appreciate your engaging in dialogue regarding these issues. I am struck with how difficult it is to obtain serious dialogue regarding them. I will be very interested in any feedback. (Also, I will be very interested in whether you will indeed be inspired by the time you finish the book. I feel very inspired by what I write about, as I describe in the book. If you are indeed inspired, I would like it to be about what is written, not how it is written. I believe there is no more important set of issues.)

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

[minorwork]

from page 54 of Rational-Ethical Living and the Emergence of "Homo Rationalis"

I wish to ask the reader again whether he or she can indeed come up with a better ultimate ethical principle than that we should do that which will promote the survival of and the good life for our species, meaning all of us, now and in the future. Is there an even more ultimate ethical proposition that would tell us when we should do something other than this? What would that more ultimate ethical principle be? Would it be that we should do as stated except when doing so interfered with our own individual interests, which should always be considered first? Which principle is the one the adherence to which would be likely to give all of us closer to what we are looking for, that is, closer to our individual interests? If no one put himself or herself out for others, if no one were generous, if everyone considered his or her own needs or wishes first, how much better off would we all be than if we all did our part, as well as possible, to make the world a better place for everyone (including ourselves)? Would we be able to define the circumstances when the ultimate ethical principle I am advocating should not be followed?


I read the article below and try to relate it to your plea for alternatives. In particular the last of your questions. It kinda' looks to me like the Plymouth colony defined such circumstances as related below.


The Great Thanksgiving Hoax
Thanksgiving 2003
By Richard J. Maybury
Mr. Maybury writes on investments. This article originally appeared in The Free Market, November 1985.


Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America .

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford , "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown , established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America . Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth . In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

Yeah I'm on page 64.

[Logicat]

Minorwork,

With respects to Homo Rationalis, since I'm only up to page 29, I kept thinking that some of the language rang bells harking back to the final pages of Atlas Shrugged. and the idea that a socialist society would benefit all. Your reply, using the true history of the Pilgrims, is exactly what was needed.

Maybe by the time I finish Homo Rationalis I'll believe differently and yes, it would be grand, but it would require, I would think, the demise, removal, eradication of more than half the inhabitants of planet Earth. At least!

Even now, more than 50 years after the Civil Rights movements, there is a group of people that would do anything to remove blacks from the USA. And, not to mention, those chauvanistic enough to want to return to the original writing of the Constitution forbidding women to vote!

I am warning you, if you banish me to the kitchen, ALL WILL STARVE!!! :D

[wvanfleet]

I just found out there had been these replies!

I hope you all are still reading, but I'll bet not, since there have been no further replies.

Briefly concerning Jamestown, just yesterday I happened to watch a program that described new findings. A core sample from a tree showed that Jamestown was hit with several years of the worst drought of centuries, and they concluded that the above story about people living as parasites on others was not likely. I am not a historian, and I don't believe that the story of Jamestown is relevant to my book. I take no political position.

I am in direct conflict with the Objectivist position regarding an ultimate ethical principle. They consider it to be mandatory and undeniable from a scientific or "metaphysical" standpoint, whereas I see it as completely arbitrary.

I know that you will come to a different conclusion regarding the book if you continue to read it. You are making assumptions as to what I am going to say that are not accurate.

So is anyone still reading?

Bill Van Fleet
Humanianity
HomoRationalis.com

[minorwork]

New book, eh Bill? Sad to say I'm still on page 64 of your first. I'll just bite off smaller chunks and continue.

My attention now is dominated by my new attempts to bring unconscious forces into conscious play. With the option of using a variety of languages to speak of this, I have at this time decided on language associated with Jung's active imagination techniques. Exciting and dangerous probings are now giving form to the Shadow or is it the Anima or Animus. I am somewhat familiar with terms used in Surat Shabd systems, but eastern thought, as such, is so loaded in religious connotations that I am attempting to learn Jung's terminology. This work of exploring my nature has always seemed to proceed in spurts for the last 35 years and it is hard in so many aspects, because of the co-dependence of family and friends. The reality of the inner worlds and its cohabitation with the outer opens such vast horizons that I stand in amazement that so many express boredom or pretended mastership of these areas.

As to Jamestown. Not being there presents challenges to the point made. So I point to my experience. My interpretation of events and my own motivations and you'll have to settle for myself as the validator.
The question is: Does the following narrative bear any resemblance to the above mentioned Pilgims and Jamestownians.



I hired in at the mine full of get up and go. Hard work when needed was acknowledged with a paid lunch or a "good" job on slack days. Funny though that the benefits for hard work was also being enjoyed by the fuck-ups. In fact, if assigned a job they would screw something up so they would not be assigned that task again. The hard workers, myself included, were broke of this desire to excel as it did not matter. This terrible dragging down of initiative I could not bear. After a time I achieved a modification of my standards and studied and mastered electric controls. By studying areas that were shunned by most others, I was able to control my own work assignments and worked alone for the most part. Most difficult was training my bosses (especially new ones) that by allowing me to follow my head the mine ran more coal. My plan succeeded considering that at the time I did not consider it a plan, just simple survival.

Most at the mine got stump broke. Once finding out the drones got paid the same, the most productive members of the workforce reduced output. If you had a reputation as a hard worker, the bosses kept you busy while the drones set back. How demoralizing.
So I'd like to know what you do with the drones? By the way the mine shut off the fans December 31, 2007. It is now closed. A very divisive work force at the end had the young new guys in a screaming match with the old at the union meetings. They accused the old of having gotten their pensions and benefits and sitting back. The older guys held that they were going to shut it down. Terrible. The older had forgot what it was like being young trying to get a family supported.


You do know, Bill, that the thread tools, by enabling the subscription option, will notify you by email that there has been a response to a particular thread you want to watch. Yes?

Just how did Shakespeare do it without a word processor? WOW!

[wvanfleet]

Minorwork,

"You do know, Bill, that the thread tools, by enabling the subscription option, will notify you by email that there has been a response to a particular thread you want to watch. Yes?"

I had tried but couldn't figure it out. Tried again and I think finally accomplished it. Thanks.

Bill Van Fleet
Humanianity
HomoRationalis.com