Into the Void

Being can be likened to a projective test.

Man can experience himself and the world in myriad ways.

Next, said I, here is a parable to illustrate the degrees in which our nature may be enlightened or unenlightened. Imagine the condition of men living in a sort of cavernous chamber underground, with an entrance open to the light and a long passage all down to the cave. Here they have been since childhood, chained by the leg and also by the neck, so that they cannot move and can only see what is in front of them, because the chains will not let them turn their heads. At some distance higher up is the light of a fire burning behind them; and between the prisoners and the fire is a track with a parapet built along it, like the screen at a puppet-show, which hides the performers while they show their puppets over the top.
I see, said he.
Now behind this parapet imagine persons carrying along various artificial objects, including figures of men and animals in wood or stone or other materials, which project above the parapet. Naturally, some of these persons will be talking, others silent.
It is a strange picture, he said, and a strange sort of prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; for in the first place prisoners so confined would have seen nothing of themselves or of one another, except the shadows thrown by the fire-light on the wall of the cave facing them, would they?
Not if all their lives they had been prevented from moving their heads.
And they would have seen as little of the objects carried past.
Of course.
Now, if they could talk to one another, would they not suppose that their words referred only to those passing shadows which they saw?
Necessarily.
And suppose their prison had an echo from the wall facing them? When one of the people crossing behind them spoke, they could only suppose that the sound came from the shadow passing before their eyes.
No doubt.
In every way, then, such prisoners would recognize as reality nothing but the shadows of those artificial objects.
Inevitably.
Now consider what would happen if their release from the chains and the healing of their unwisdom should come about in this way. Suppose one of them set free and forced suddenly to stand up, turn his head, and walk with eyes lifted to the light; all these movements would be painful, and he would be too dazzled to make out the objects whose shadows he had been used to see. What do you think he would say, if someone told him that what he had formerly seen was meaningless illusion, but now, being somewhat nearer to reality and turned towards more real objects, he was getting a truer view. Suppose further that he were shown the various objects being carried by and were made to say, in reply to questions, what each of them was. Would he not be perplexed and believe the objects now shown him to be not so real as what he formerly saw?
Yes, not nearly so real.
from THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE,
The Republic of Plato,
Francis Cornford, trans.

Someone asked me, in response to a previous message, whether I am predator or prey. My reply:

Yes, you are *exactly* right. Humans are capable of being either. This means that we can switch from one set of neurotransmitters to the other set in an instant. Deer can’t do that. Lions can’t do that. They mostly use one pathway or another.

You see the implications of this with regards to bipolar disorder?

The problem isn’t the switch for us, it’s that we switch for no reason and the chemicals take a lot longer to dissipate than non-bipolars’ do. Our non-bipolar friends seem to have a lesser response to a sudden fright too. That’s my opinion.

Predatory behavior is useful in the business world - but *modulated* to help you achieve career goals. You can’t litter your cubicle with the gnawed bones of the competition. But you don’t get to be a corporate CEO by cowering at staff meetings either. Stress is the result of long-term exposure to the prey neurotransmitter, adrenaline. You’ve heard them talk about “fight or flight” and that’s what they mean.

If you don’t like being a predator, it’s because you haven’t learned how to use it constructively.

In answer to your question, I can be either.

Natural Terror | The Zucchini Patch

Update 9/22/2007: Jessica retooled her blog over the summer. Do be sure to check it out. Here’s the new link to the post above.
Natural Terror | The Zucchini Patch

A quick search for the toothmark photo below turned up a couple of interesting blog entries using the same photo. I include them here to bore the disinterested:
Who, or What, Killed the Australopithicine? - which added the phrase “Osteodontokeratic industry” to my already useless vocabulary.
IIDB > IIDB Philosophical Forums > Evolution/Creation > The wiring of the eye: Is it poor design? to which I answer, no, not a poor design but the prototype for the real thing - if we can evolve it before the Creationists destroy the world - to prevent it from happening, I suppose?
IIDB > IIDB Philosophical Forums > Evolution/Creation > Early Humans on the Menu

One of Jessica’s recent posts reminded me of Paul Shepard’s eye-opening book, “The Others: How Animals Made Us Human.”
Dr. Shepard was a Professor of Natural Philosophy and Human Ecology and wrote a number of books on our complex relationships with the earth and her other inhabitants.
In “The Others,” Dr. Shepard’s focus is on the topic of domesticating animals. Originally our relationship with other species was simple. Either we ate that species, or we were eaten by it. Simplistic as it sounds, that has a profound impact on our central nervous systems, specifically the limbic system.
As an aside, domestication changed some species into status symbols, and it is possible to determine the social status of extended family members by whether they slept nearer or farther than the livestock.
In “Thinking Animals: Animals and the Development of Human Intelligence,” Dr. Shepard briefly discusses the neurotransmitters. Prey animals are hypervigilant, always watching and waiting for some unknown something to startle them into flight. Predators’ neurochemistry, however, mandates focus: moving slowly, with patience and determination, toward the object of their attention. What kind of animal can display both kinds of attention? It must require a wild mood swing to instantly change a creeping hunter into someone who is running at top speed from a predator. It is a huge shift from one neurochemical pathway to a completely different pathway, releasing a neurotransmitter and simultaneously inhibiting another. I believe that the ability to switch contexts was an important factor in our evolution.
No matter how much we have evolved both psychologically and culturally, the old systems are still wired in and still affect us. We are not a separate act of creation.
I’m sure that our protohominid ancestors were eaten by all manner of frightening creatures. Miss Bugs tells me that her ancestors, the sabre-toothed tigers, used to sneak up on our tiny Australopithecine ancestors, grab them by the head, and drag them home for the kittens to play with. Lower teeth puncture the back of the head, unwieldy canine teeth pierce the eyes. Physical anthropologists have found quite a few Australopithecus skulls with these puncture marks, as evidenced by the wonderful photo at right. Update 9/22: This early hominid skull was found in a cave at Swarkrans in the late 1930s. It wasn’t for another 30-some years that someone paused to reflect on the odd indentations in the skulls. We’ll leave the question about the skulls having indentations resembling early hominids’ stone tools for another time. This pausing to reflect takes a lot of effort!

“The Others” is worth reading if only for the chapter on teddy bears as psychological bridges between the wild and the civilized. (I think housecats serve that purpose adequately.)

“Except possibly his soul, man prizes his mind above all else. His mind is a product of its ecology — the same ecology. Nothing that evolves persists unless sustained by those same creative forces. Like a ball at the top of a fountain, the human head pivots on its animal backbone, the mind a turning knot of thought and dream on the end of a liquid spear of living animals.”
– Paul Shepard, “Thinking Animals”

Paul Shepard mood swing sabre-toothed tiger Australopithecus evolution limbic system anthropology neurotransmitters protohominid social status

Update 9/22: osteodontokeratic industry cat food

Refer back to a previous posting.

http://koko.org/world/
Koko has a tested IQ of between 70 and 95 on a human scale, where 100 is considered “normal.”

One wag has suggested that we use gorillas as sky marshals.

I would like to point out that the wording on Koko’s site was that a 100 IQ is “normal.” What it really is, is average. 78% of the human population is in the range of 80 to 120 points.
But how does IQ work? Another way to look at it is that with a 70 IQ Koko might get through the 6th grade and hold a job doing simple tasks in a supervised environment. In reality, of course, her language limitations might make this difficult.
With an IQ of 80, she might be able to complete the 7th grade and work unsupervised in an unskilled job - washing dishes, say.
With an IQ of 90 she might graduate high school and be capable of working a semi-skilled job.

I used the bottom of the ability ranges here. With a 95 IQ, Koko might be able to earn a college degree if she were motivated. I hope this puts it into perspective.

“Fine Animal Person Gorilla have Liberal Arts degree. Welcome to Wal-Mart.”

Purchases through the ad above benefit The Gorilla Foundation. I am not in any way affiliated with The Gorilla Foundation.

References:
Definition of IQ
American Scientist
hiqnews.megafoundation.org
APA Journal

“I am interested in madness. I believe it is the biggest thing in the human race, and the most constant. How do you take away from a man his madness without also taking away his identity?”
– William Saroyan (American writer, 1908-1981)

34. lae Apr 25 1988, 4:03 pm
From: l…@pedsga.UUCP - Find messages by this author
Date: 25 Apr 88 20:03:56 GMT
Local: Mon, Apr 25 1988 4:03 pm
Subject: Re: Are Animals Patentable?

in article <1…@qiclab.UUCP> leon…@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:

[It will be found] that there are some “humans” who don’t fit the definition … unless the definition is such that some creatures considered “non-human” now will be “human” under it. Both outcomes will cause great outcry. … (… I’d be surprised if it happened in 5 years, and even more surprised if it *didn’t* happen in 25!)

I believe that the answer is to treat all animals as humans and to provide vocational rehab for those who have trouble functioning in human society.

Leslie

>The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make
>empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have
>made a covenant with the Devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in
>the bonds of Hell … –Saint Augustine (heh heh heh)

SSDD, huh?

Feb 11 1988, 12:43 pm in sci.philosophy.tech