Patrimony

Patrimony “inherited from father”, i.e. the assumption is that the father creates wealth which is transmitted down the generations. This word does not fully encompass the concept which will be described below. In this sense it means that fraction of a nation which is shared among the population. To illustrate further, the sum total “wealth” of a nation can be assumed to belong, as the appropriate fraction, to every member of that national community. It is vaguely understood is some contexts. Thus the scenery is spoken of as “our beautiful land”. But it goes further – there is a “commonwealth’. This is that portion of the agriculture, the fisheries, industries, services, within a land which can be considered to belong – in the appropriate fraction – to each “citizen”. Of course it cannot be claimed directly by each citizen. Except in a few isolate circumstances such as a “commonage”, or (in English law) right of passage. But it is available as “drop down”. Thus the inhabitants of a wealthy country tend to be wealthy, benefiting from the affluence of the rest of the community.

Other factors abut on the residents of a given nation (or sub-section of that nation), such as the compassion, charitibility, and generosity of that community. Also included is the “filiality” of the community (the extent to which (most) feel an allegiance to their fellows, and are prepared to act as their “brother’s keeper”). This varies with community, and it is likely that the smaller the community, so the greater is this filial concern. [It is noteworthy that as populations condense, so the need to assert “individuality” increases. That is to say individuals projects their needs as individuals over (and in competition with) the needs of the community. Ultimately the individual competes against the state in an attempt to extract maximally from that state.]

This is the “patrimony” inherited by dint of the existence, and approval of that existence, by the community. It is valuable, and guarded by the community – at times by physical isolation, such as in an island or by building fortified walls about the community. It is a value not easily dispensed or sacrificed by most communities.

This “protection” of the “laggard” is demonstrated in many social animal communities.

What the immigrant does is to dilute the “patrimony” by that fraction represented by an individual, or multiplied by the size of that alien intrusion.

Approval.  This is the binding agent of societies. Each individual seeks approval, by controlling (inhibiting) behaviour to accord with the expectations of, and the approval of, that society. The precise strategies will vary with the society, its culture, and the threats to that society.

In this context “politeness” warrants introduction. What is politeness? It is suggested that this is a behavioral pattern which “recognizes that a system of behavior is in place”. The entire system might not be understood, at least initially. Once it is understood – or partly understood – the participants in this behavioral pattern will rapidly assert their social” rights”. That enhances and reinforces the behavioral patterns, and has the sub-purpose of demonstrating the existence of a behavioral pattern to the novice. To illustrate: a newcomer to a church congregation will demonstrate “politeness” by keeping voice down (which serves to establish that “he” is not assertively intruding, and probably accepts a seat to the back, behind the “established” congregation (which members of that congregation will readily demonstrate by the confidence with which they occupy “their” place in the chancel.)

Advertisements
Posted in Human Behaviour, Humans as social animals, Language | Tagged | Leave a comment

Pleasure, Happiness and Comfort

Large regions of the brain have recently been mapped and labeled as “centers of pleasure”[1]

Happiness, however, appears to be an emotion which is recognised retrospectively. It is preceded by “pleasure” the complex result of an interpretation by the brain of external factors received through the conscious senses. These (essentially binary) imputs are selectively amplified (as described in an earlier post).

Pleasure at this introductory stage is interpreted in terms of those (selectively amplified) external factors, which become symbols or tokens of “pleasure”. That association remains identified with the source, so that sexual pleasure (for example) is associated with a particular female. This has a “lock-in” effect and ties the male psychologically to that female.

“Happiness” is then the reterospective appraisal, as stored in memory.

In a similar way, food which appeals is associated with pleasure and is thereafter sought preferentially.

Similar mechanisms can be associated with “comfort”, such as an environment offering shelter, warmth and protection. That entity is then sought selectively in a search for the pleasure of “comfort”.

“Reward” can be considered the satisfaction of fulfilling expectation.

[1] Richard L. Peterson, M.D.

Collaborating Researcher, Stanford University

Managing Partner, Market Psychology Consulting

San Francisco, CA , USA

Telephone:  415.267.4880

Email:  richard@peterson.net

Last updated January 3, 2005

Published in: Brain Research Bulletin

 

Posted in Human Behaviour, Humans as social animals, Sex and Society | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why do Humans Dominate the Earth?

It has been frequently pondered why humans have become the dominating animal species. Amongst the answers which have been punted are the human capacity to use hands, the “reasoning” which allow the use of instruments and the “superior intellectual capability”.

It is probably none of those.

An alternative explanation is the human capacity for mobility, in a fashion unequalled by most other animals. The mobility of most animals is usually contained and constrained by particular habitats. Humans, distinctly, have had the capacity to adapt to, and hence travel into (and through) multiple habitats. This capacity, like all biological qualities, demands multi-factorial capabilities and is the end result of a combination of capabilities, of which adaptability is probably predominant.

Why travel? A variety of social behaviour is associated with the capacity (or necessity) for travel. One of which is the tendency for large communities to break  up into smaller communities which, like hiving bees, will spread into other territories and so correct the congestion and overcrowding of excessively large communities (and the potentials for conflict which will arise in crowded, disparate, and hence competitive communities ).

This capacity for and need to migrate has clearly played an important part in the domination of the Earth by humans.

Fragmenting of social groups into social strata appears have both beneficial and negative effect historically. However, factors such as avarice, jealousy and acquisitiveness produced tensions within a heterogeneous community. The resulting stress, caused by this “evolving” behaviour, prompts the need to “migrate”.

Needless to say the search for resources or acceptable climates also plays a part in prompting travel.

 

Bipedalism might play a part, making it possible to traverse “uneven territory”, (including the climbing of mountains and trees) more readily. The concentration of muscle bulk in the lower limbs made for a greater weight efficiency (and hence the greater energy efficiency). The grasping ability of the hands and relatively light weight of humans enabled climbing trees, of mountains and the transportation of acquisitions – including food, weapons and other humans – such as babies.

Vertical adaptation. This allows bipedalism. Adjunctive to the vertical behaviour became the necessity to protect against falling (failsafe falling) and complex protective mechanisms of energy dissipation necessitated by both running and jumping from heights. In particular, such mechanisms of energy dissipation protect the brain from jolting, direct impact, and other assaults (such as falls or striking the head). The vertical stance had other benefits, including the capacity to survey surrounding territory both for travel direction and the avoidance of hostile factors (including other humans). It enabled reaching for “higher fruit”

Energy acquisition and transportation. The human is (and during migration was) able to carry efficiently sufficient reserve energy, both in terms of fat distribution and gut content.

The gut as a reservoir. This reservoir capability allowed retention of excreta until disposed of by discreet selection of the site of deposition. This had the advantage of preventing the “trailing” of the human by smelling animals and also the benefit of reducing transmissible disease. Indeed, if it were only possible to ensure that disposal of excreta was prevented from contamination of utilisable water a number of diseases would be entirely eliminated – including schistosomiasis.

Adaptation to new terrain and differing contexts required the evolution of “conscious” sensors and commonly quoted are the “five conscious senses”. This allowed an incorporation into, and harmonizing with, new biological environments.

Sensory input. In order to adapt to new environments, the capacity to perceive the variations of environments required sophisticated sensory skills. A common belief is that humans have “all encompassing “skills of perception, which allow humans to have a “total view of their environment”, and stemming from that the assumption that humans (in concert) either “know all” or “will know all” (via “science”, exploration or “evolution”)

Sensory blindness.  However there are a great number of sensors operative in the human which are not consciously perceived: For example, the sense of gravity, which is only partially perceived. It is possible for humans to perceive some of the effects of gravity, upon which balance is made possible. This is imperative, since the human is primarily a balancing machine – a human who cannot balance is totally incapacitated (and more impaired than a tetraplegic). However, much of the sense of gravity is not consciously perceivable, such as the atmospheric pressure. This is often explained as “we are so used to the crush of atmospheric pressure that we do not notice it”. However if the pressure is substantially reduced (by ascending altitude) to the point of anoxia, the human is incapable of perceiving that change. in much the same way the human is incapable of perceiving ( consciously) changes in blood pressure and heart rate, although these are actively and finely measured forms of sensory input, which are constantly operative (but without conscious perception).

Re-sampling of movement (both relative and absolute) is a highly developed capability of humans, whereby the inputs from “conscious senses” (notably visual) are reassessed repeatedly. That allows enhanced movement skills, such as catching or orientation in space. This capacity seems to be more developed in some individuals – such a successful racing drivers – and less so in others.

 Pregnancy. Verticality necessitated adaptation of pregnancy and parturition to travel, primary expressed by changes in the pelvis. This allowed support of the fetus by a bony structure. Nevertheless, this bony structure was so adapted as to allow delivery of the mature infant through the pelvis.

Food. Adaptation to new environments, as is necessitated by travel, requires adaptation to new forms of nutrition. Humans have the capacity to adapt to a wide variety of foodstuffs, probably associated with changes in their metabolic pathways. It might be that many of these alterations to metabolic pathways occurred early in life, perhaps within the first year of feeding. It is also possible that these metabolic pathways are changed with ageing. This results in factors such as the redistribution of fat, allowing, amongst other reasons, the capacity to perceive the changes of ageing – so important in mate selection.

 Language. Confluent with the ability to travel probably arose the ability to verbally distinguish “like kindred” from “aliens”. This took the form of divergent languages and dialects (which continue to play an important part in both the identification and the separation of humans.)

Assessing cause and effect. A factor assisting adaptation to new environments seems to have been the capacity to assess cause and effect. In the process of adapting to new environments and contexts, that capacity became important, along with its associate, memory. Memory enables the human animal to both recall and predict the cause-and-effect relationship discerned previously by the “conscious senses”.

 

This desire to “migrate” is now constrained by the shackles of “capitalist behaviour”.  One result is accumulation of humans into restricted areas (such as cities).

However, those urges to migrate (said another way, to move from restrictive environments, caused by behavioural evolution) are now demonstrated by dissident groups forced to accumulate into city squares and other open spaces, as “protests”. Those groups represent (what should be) the “hiving” humans, who in times past would simply move away from the “mother group”.  That is now impossible, because of “capitalist constraint”

What is “capitalist constraint”? This is the “lock-in” effect of capitalism (and for capitalism read “possessivisim”, the dependence on material possessions). Thus the “worker”, in order to accumulate “money” must be restricted to a work-place, and similarly the children are restricted to a “school-place”, and movement must be restricted to a “transport network”. An alternate term could be “commercial bondage”.

Such crowded communities will evolve local “clans” and the contestation between these factions.

Spontaneous migration is therefore near impossible. If it does occur (as demonstrated by “asylum seekers”,) reaction from the inhabitants of the “host area” is unlikely to be favourable. Expressing this is the historical defense of occupied areas, in the past by physical barriers, now by that and additional bureaucratic barriers.

What does the brain do, and why is it so big?

It creates emotions which are essential for the adaptation to novel environments.

Emotions can be considered the end result of all neurological sensory acquisition. Emotions calibrate the sensory inputs, provide an amplifying (and of course diminishing) process, which modifies, and enhances the (simple) binary input from each of the “five conscious senses”.

The complex assembly of interpretations, which are expressed as the “emotions”, arises from the integration of multiple sensory experiences, which (amongst other features) incorporates the “learning” contributed by memory. It also incorporates – and so includes – the “hard wired” intuitive, in order to produce a more emphatic response (from any assessments of the immediate context.)  It appears that the entire complexity of the brain has as it goal the construction of “emotions”.

The memory component of “emotions” and various pattern recognising skills necessary for the construction of emotional interpretation can also be used to develop complex mathematic and other “creational” skills.

Language is an important contributor to “emotion”, because it can (also) be used as a tool for interpreting the environment. There are examples, which illustrate this, in comparative biology. One is demonstrated in the development of the new-born zebra. This neonate learns, almost immediately, to recognise (and never forget) its mother’s stripe pattern – with the obvious survival benefit.

So it is with humans, which develop complex language skills far earlier than other complex skills. Even the complex skill of walking independently is learned later than early language

See separate essays on the emotions as they pertain to sexuality and successful reproduction. This is associated with the fecundity necessary to compensate for the attrition associated with travel and adaptation to new environments and climates.

Copyright JP Driver-Jowitt 2017

Posted in Human Behaviour, Humans as social animals, Language, Sex and Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The weapons of manipulating moral righteousness, avarice, jealousy and acquisitiveness.

Moral righteousness is a meme. That is a behavioural attitude which can spread through a society influencing decisions and allowing evaluation both “negative” and “positive”.

Moral righteousness is probably impossible to define. However, it has the effect of conjoining human behaviour and therefore is important in the unification of society and a unity of behaviour.

It is, however, possible to use “moral righteousness“  in a nefarious fashion via “propaganda”. [It might be that it is required that there is a certain minimal loading of this type of meme before it becomes self-generating and universal.] The analogy with”viral” information spread via social media is pertinent: the spread of a contrived “moral rectitude” can be illustrated by this comparison.

At times it might be a single word which becomes associated with abhorrence or will induce abhorrence, under the guise of “moral rectitude”. One was the term “apartheid” which was powerfully injected into the human social consciousness of the West. This might have been an instrument of Communist propaganda, since it followed the well-known strategies of used by Communists. It might equally well have been used by other interest groups intent on destabilising Africa. Perhaps both existed simultaneously.

Jealousy, avarice and acquisitiveness appear to be part of the human “competitive” quality. These behavioural patterns are likely to have survival benefits for the individual. However, the elements of individual survival often run contrary to those of societal benefit (and survival) in a finely tuned “balance of interests”.

Therefore, in agglomerated societies the inhibition of avarice, acquisitiveness, and jealousy are desirable societal qualities.

Christianity is only one example of the doctrine of inhibition of qualities (which are inherent in the individual) but which are adverse to societal integrity. These facets of the individual’s inherent make up seem to be readily perverted by appropriate propaganda. It is this propaganda which has been used forcefully to introduce the (nebulous) “social righteousness” of “anti-money-laundering” and “anti- drug monitoring”.

In this way it is possible to induce entire populations into a (financial) behavioural pattern, luring and placating individuals as they succumb to the bait, which allows worldwide hegemony of finances and worldwide control of monetary systems.

There appears to be only one route available to defeat such supranational control by using the weapons of “moral righteousness”. That is the fragmentation of societies into relatively small groups, in which the group protects itself by strongly promoting the interests of the group and rejecting (and becoming aware of) these attempts at universal supranational control.

There do appear to be some indications of a stirring of discomfort, in the “nationalist” movements of a number of groups, notably the language groups which includes the Basque, Catalonians and Celtic language groups. Israel is a similar example, defined by its unique language, Hebrew. Several nations have already devolved, such as Czechoslovakia (into language groups), Yugoslavia, East Timor and Britain.

More will surely follow.

Posted in Human Behaviour, Humans as social animals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Appeasement

The role, indeed the onus and the inherent imperative of the individual is to assert. That is the necessary contribution of all to society. This should not be mistaken for aggression or attempts at dominance. Instead it is an expression of values, likely inherent in that person’s make-up. Behaviour, every bit as much as presence, creates societies. Without assertion, however minimal, societies not only collapse, but are vulnerable.

Appeasement is the denial of inherent inclination. Often it is forced or politically imposed. Of course appeasement is a near relative of both placation and restraint and differentiation requires subtle, and schooled insight.

Appeasement has a tragic history. Before the Second World War the British Prime Minister demanded that the Czechoslovak President, M. Benesch, surrender his defensive zone as an appeasement to Adolf Hitler. M. Benesh capitulated to this appeasement, saying “We bequeath our sorrows to the West”. How right he was.

Later, this same British Prime Minister again capitulated, announcing that appeasement would “Bring peace in our time”. Naïve, if not stupid, he brought upon his electorate the greatest tragedy to have ever been inflicted upon them.

Prior to the American entry into the First World War, Woodrow Wilson dallied trying to appease those who wished to appease the Keizer Wilhelm. The eventual American entry was too little, too late to save the best and most cherished of Western European men.

Appeasement reigned in Africa, again in a capitulation to a vociferous minority (who has something to personally gain) which brought tragic chaos, after the weakness demonstrated by Harold Macmillan’s attempts to appease.

History will demonstrate – again perhaps with tragedy – the current attempts by powerful political figures – to appease alien immigration into Europe

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wood unseen for Trees: Individualism

Humans are social animals. Groups cannot be accurately assessed unless the entire group (society) is assessed. Needless to say groups form a spectrum of individuals with varied talents and varied contributions to societal benefit, which is why the composite whole must be assessed.

If a group demonstrates consistent “success”, the entire group can be credited with that success. Those who are “unsuccessful” will nevertheless contain the genetics of the group, or be maturing or declining.

Therefore a group cannot be assessed at any one time, because the group is time-traversing. There is no one moment in which a group can be accurately measured. That is because the “group” contains maturing children, fetus in uterus, and supremely successful individuals in decline. In addition there is role shift, such that a successful person might mature into success in another field.

In the age of individualism it has become habitual to consider and select single persons for appraisal. At times these “individuals” are selected and demonstrated as superior examples (which they might well be) but these do not demonstrate the values of the group as an entirety.

Indeed it has become illegal to make judgments about a group as a whole. This is regarded as “profiling”.  Yet “profiling” forms the basis of almost all human judgments. Profiling is common, almost universal, and yet –bizarrely – illegal in some of the world. Even a CV is, effectively, a “profile” of that person

The Western World (including Australasia) has long selectively chosen “superior” individuals for incorporation into their societies and aimed to merge them with the values of that society (“integration”). Yet this is theft, since the original society has invested in those persons since the conception of the maternal grandparent, and before that into eternity.  Those exceptional individuals have been created by their “home” society and are due to pay – by their presence- that dividend due to their society-of-origin.

The “success” of any group, by whatever parameter, can only be measured by history.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Artificial Intelligence

AI could be considered a “machine”, like all the other machinery upon which creative societies are based. Therefore the prognostic philosophy will be the same.

For more than a century it has been proposed that “machines will do all the work for humans”. It is true that heavy work has been assisted by levers, block-and-tackle and eventually by steam power and internal combustion devices (which include the jet engine)

However these devices themselves have to be constructed, and at a cost. Ultimately the machines do allow some individuals to work without assistance. However the costs of the machinery have to be factored into the cost of the product. Said another way the cost to society. The combine harvester exemplifies: It allows a single farmer to do the work of many. The cost is factored into the price of grain. [Those costs include design and development, maintenance, transport, fuel, taxation and more]

Eventually it is that individual farmer who can profit, and so become rich. But those who buy the grain become poorer (because they are paying for the pyramid of costs). The result is that the poor (who cannot afford the capital costs of machinery. and the financial mechanisms which allow some to “lever” the availability of money) become poorer.

Thus machines increase the rich-poor divide. But we know that, because it is demonstrated all about us, every day. Those who own motor-vehicles earn sufficient to own motor-vehicles.

AI is much the same. Granted electronics are “cheap”, but nevertheless there are considerable costs in development, construction, mining, distribution, sales and more.

Therefore the question is not what AI can or cannot do, it is the ultimate fate of increasing wealth for the few, and increasing poverty for the many.

Wealth means power. The outcome will be power for the few. Since machines are necessary to make machines a multiplier effect will occur, and that power will be exponentially increased for the few who will be exponentially reduced in number.

Ultimately the ultra-few (probably anonymously) will control mankind.

Posted in Human Behaviour | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment