p_p_man's Sunday Morning Thought...

[p_p_man]

I was watching ths TV show the other night where the time travelling character is split into two. His good side and his bad side.

And a thought suddenly occurred to me. Everyone likes to think that human beings are a naturally non-aggressive species, unless in times of threat.

But is that necessarily so?

If our bad side has to be kept under control at all, doesn't that pre-suppose that our bad side is the more dominant one and that to be good is to be unnatural.

Does this continuous suppression of our bad side, because of social convention, laws and fear of punishment not have an adverse affect on our psychological makeup? Are we not liable to become more mentally unstable the more our bad sides are kept restrained?

If we allowed our bad sides to run riot, what would actually happen? More than likely the complete breakdown of law and order and society.

So are we, as human beings, meant to be subjected to law and order and society's restrictions? Or are both restraints bad for the evolvement of our species?

Well, it is Sunday

ppman

 

[mig]

Oh god!

My head feels like it's being crushed from the inside.

My intestines are trying to strangle my brain.

And you post this,on a Sunday morning for chrissake.

 

[p_p_man]

Oh god!

My head feels like it's being crushed from the inside.

My intestines are trying to strangle my brain.

And you post this,on a Sunday morning for chrissake.

And how did you get that way pray?

Not by being good I'll wager!

 

[Lost Cause]

As long as it's understood that the aggression must have an outlet. Be it contact sports, becoming a cop, joining the military, anything that channels that need for conquest. I get pissed off, I head to the gym for some serious weightlifting!

 

[solid_]

If we allowed our bad sides to run riot, what would actually happen? More than likely the complete breakdown of law and order and society.

We not far off from that allready in tony blairs England .lol

 

[Riven___Caulfield]

We're all humans raised in society, but let's face it - we're a half-million years out of the jungle. Technology doubles every six weeks, and we're a bunch of Naked Apes - a thousand or so of us have little red buttons and great big bombs.


Man is an animal. Like any animal, it seeks what it needs, then what it wants. Every invention man ever created was simply for the purpose of making his own life easier. Is this benevolent?

It is nature. Good and evil. Bah.

 

[p_p_man]

As long as it's understood that the aggression must have an outlet. Be it contact sports, becoming a cop, joining the military, anything that channels that need for conquest. I get pissed off, I head to the gym for some serious weightlifting!

That's what I mean though.

By going to the gym or playing contact sports, and bear in mind that not everybody can or wants to follow physical pursuits, you are trying to supress a natural characteristic.

A human trait that is much more natural than good 'acceptable' behaviour.

Aren't you doing yourself more psychological harm by trying to control or channel all that built up aggression?

Shouldn't you just let it all out?

 

[Lost Cause]

I've let it out on occasion, usually yellin' or breakin' an inanimate object. I think the more government intrudes on our private pursuits, we see more of the "fight or flight" syndrome in the populations. I think you're right though, we are agressive in nature, and to suppress that built in instinct is a mental disorder. I think it's a huge mistake to suppress kids with the behavior control drugs that the state force feeds them. All the school shooters in the US were on some form of behavior control medications. I don't think that is coincidence. I think the neurosis that is the threat, is the social restriction on aggressive behavior, as long as it's not directed against another, or property. If someone can't channel their behavior, a short haul in prison or the military service should help!

 

[red_rose]

Hmm...

(a p_p_man discussion I can actually take part in - yippee!)

I believe that whether or not the human species is non-aggressive is no longer an "all or none" deal. There are so many societal differences now that come between us. Whether or not someone is being non-aggressive because of laws and rules imposed upon them by the world really depends a great deal on how that person was brought up.

For example... I am not an aggressive person. If I am mad at all, 9 times out of 10, I am mad at myself. Whether it was my parents or my schooling, I have been taught to be logical and therefore *not* lose my cool.

I also feel that those who are quite aggressive are going to be aggressive regardless of what society asks of them. (If this weren't true, we wouldn't have so many prisons that were filled to the brim...and crime would not be such a hot topic.)

But, to answer your question... if someone is aggressive by nature and is surpressing it out of fear/punishment/etc... yes, I believe this could harm them psychologically. I also believe that they would need to find the root of their aggression and solve the issue that way rather than putting a band-aid on it by acting out whenever necessary.

 

[mig]

And how did you get that way pray?

Not be being good I'll wager!

Actually I was being very good.

Ask anyone,by midnight there were one or two who could still
see.

 

[bluespoke]

It's Sunday morning and he wants me to think?

My brain hurts!

 

[p_p_man]

All the school shooters in the US were on some form of behavior control medications.

I didn't know that. Now that's interesting in itself.

If we take it as read that aggression is Man's dominant side and that any suppression of that aggression would lead to neurotic behaviour and in the long term have a crippling effect on Man's evolution, then we are not doing ourselves, as a species, any favours.

No matter how that aggression manifests itself, or whether it's mild or whether it's strong depending on the individual, should it not be allowed to run its course. And not be controlled at all.

In the film "Clockwork Orange" the main character was an aggressive 'anti-social' 'psychpath' who was forced to take a series of mind controlling drugs which made him docile and 'socially acceptable'. But, and I think this was the cleverness of Kubrick, after release from prison the main character met by accident all the people he had harmed in the first part of the film, who in turn became 'anti-social' 'psychopaths' to exact revenge on who was once their tormenter.

We are taught from a very early age what is right and what is wrong. But are we being taught the correct things which are right or wrong?

The mere fact that aggression has to be controlled would seem to me that it is wrong to suppress it because in effect we are supressing our dominant side..

After all we don't have to supress goodness do we?

Why not?



ppman

 

[Ishmael]

Deep shit to start a Sunday off with pp.

Are humans no less subject to social convention than any other social animal? The bee's and ant's, the bird's that flock, wolves, cattle?

Aren't many laws nothing more than the formalization of 'social rules'?

I think that the settting of the confines with which we live our lives are nothing more than formulas for the survival of the species. As opposed to the survival of the individual.

Or to put that another way. Solitary existence tends towards anarchy, group existence leans towards order. Anarchist's tend to believe that man will gravitate towards undirected social harmony. The predators within our society teaches us otherwise.

I don't happen to believe that the law acts as a deterent to crime. If it did, their wouldn't be so much crime. Nor is it fear of punishment that stays the hand of the criminal, after all they don't expect to be caught. I believe that the law is merely a means to remove from society those that do get caught. The law provides a means for us to rid our selves of those that are not working within the social order without having to resort to mob rule.

So to say that these laws act to suppress those that are intent on breaking them isn't necessarily true. To say that they act as a 'fence', or a yardstick, so that we can identify those that are intent on breaking them may be closer to the truth of the matter.

My two cents for what it's worth.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

Our bad side works towards it's own self-interests.

It's the good side that you have to keep under control...

 

[p_p_man]

The predators within our society teaches us otherwise.
Ishmael

But what I'm asking is that because our dominant side is the aggressive or 'bad' side then aren't we all predators. It's nothing to do with laws or social acceptance or teachings as these are very flimsy safeguards against aggressive behaviour, they can be broken down in an instant.

Probably the only reason we haven't descended into anarchy is the fact that the least aggressive of us are in the majority. But even they must suffer from psychological disorders if their dominant side is always supressed.

Visit any part of history where the bad side of Man was less suppressed and you visit times and places where tremendous strides forward were made. But always against a bloodthirsty background. And I'm not talking about the Industrial Revolution in Europe or the Scientific Revolution in the US, they were only bit players against a larger canvass. Behind them was the aggression of the conflicts going on all over the world.

Where would America be without the lawlessness of the Wild West and the aggression of the pioneers? If they had been supressed would your country be where it is today.

My original question was:

As the 'evil' or aggressive side of Man is the side that needs to be suppressed, are we not in fact suppressing that part of us that gives us the greatest impetus forward and is a major factor in Man's evolutution?

To put it bluntly will we as a species die out sooner than we need to because we have not allowed the wild side of our nature to run free?

We all have to be Miss Goody Two Shoes...

ppman

 

[Cheyenne]

Remember my wolves thread?

"Two natures beat within my breast.
One is foul, the other blest.
The one I love; the one I hate.
The one I feed will dominate."

 

[SINthysist]

Die out?

No eventually this pent-up energy will launch us into space. Those that need a wild, wild, west will have it. Those who lead will have a whole new age of colonialization...

 

[Ishmael]

But what I'm asking is that because our dominant side is the aggressive or 'bad' side then aren't we all predators. It's nothing to do with laws or social acceptance or teachings as these are very flimsy safeguards against aggressive behaviour, they can be broken down in an instant.

Probably the only reason we haven't descended into anarchy is the fact that the least aggressive of us are in the majority. But even they must suffer from psychological disorders if their dominant side is always supressed.

Visit any part of history where the bad side of Man was less suppressed and you visit times and places where tremendous strides forward were made. But always against a bloodthirsty background. And I'm not talking about the Industrial Revolution in Europe or the Scientific Revolution in the US, they were only bit players against a larger canvass. Behind them was the aggression of the conflicts going on all over the world.

Where would America be without the lawlessness of the Wild West and the aggression of the pioneers? If they had been supressed would your country be where it is today.

My original question was:

As the 'evil' or aggressive side of Man is the side that needs to be suppressed, are we not in fact suppressing that part of us that gives us the greatest impetus forward and is a major factor in Man's evolutution?

To put it bluntly will we as a species die out sooner than we need to because we have not allowed the wild side of our nature to run free?

We all have to be Miss Goody Two Shoes...

ppman

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, and in your first paragraph is the difference between you and I.

I do not beleive that the 'bad' side is the dominant. I beleive that with individual guidance man will gravitate towards social order. I don't beleive that the heavy hand of governement is required in all aspects of the affairs of men to maintain an orderly society.

And I certainly don't beleive that a 'welfare' or socialist state is in the best interests of the specie.

It has never ceased to amaze me how human kind has risen to face adversity. Both as a specie and as individuals. I am equally amazed that the number of people when given, if not prosperity, at least some modicom of comfort that engage in self destructive behavior.

If, for example, at the end of the '60s here in the US, instead of instituting welfare we had handled it a little differently we would have seen some surprising results. Instead of doling out a little money over an extended period of time we had simply identified those currently living in poverty and given them each 1 million dollars in a lump sum. The caveat being that that is all that they and their family will ever recieve, ever. I suspect that 90% would be back in poverty by the end of the year, 95% within 2 years, and 99% within 5 years. And it would have been far cheaper for the tax payer.

How is this related to your thread?

Easy, civilizations thrive under adversity just as individuals do. Conflict creates the will to live and succeed. The real question is whether this is bad or good? Complacent, unchallenged societies tend to degenerate and are replaced by more vital entities. Without adversity, stagnation rules. Conflicts between nations, business's, etc. provide the outlet of which you speak. Sports are a poor substitute. Sports may provide an outlet for the players, but in the end it is nothing more than entertainment and produces nothing.

My view of war is much like Machiavellis view of politics. It is neither bad nor good. It just is. Usually the more vital of the two antagonists will prevail and civilization will take a step forward. This is not always the case, but mostly. It is the repetition of "David and Goliath". The English fleet agaist the Spanish Armanda, the US at the battle of Midway, the Trojan Horse. How often have the nimble of history vanguished the mighty?

I beleive that the establishment of world peace and equitable distribution of resources will spell the end of the human species. The beginnning of universal stagnation.

Ishmael

 

[red_rose]

My original question was:

As the 'evil' or aggressive side of Man is the side that needs to be suppressed, are we not in fact suppressing that part of us that gives us the greatest impetus forward and is a major factor in Man's evolutution?

To put it bluntly will we as a species die out sooner than we need to because we have not allowed the wild side of our nature to run free?

We all have to be Miss Goody Two Shoes...

ppman

hmm... seems like a diff. question than earlier posed if you ask me, p_p_man! Before we were talking individual mental health, now you are talking about evolution!

If you compare the population of the Earth back when laws and rules were fewer and farther between - back when releasing your aggression could make you a warrior among men - to the population we have now, the numbers are staggering. We as humans have begun to fill every empty space we can find.

Yes, if there hadn't been a lawless "Wild West" or aggressive pioneers, we may very well all be living on the east coast and buffalo would be far more plentiful.

But...without this same aggression (in a different sense), wouldn't we also be without modern medicine? modern conveniences? (e.g. living on that east coast but still dying of smallpox, plague, etc.)

Perhaps we will die out by not letting our "wild side" run free... We are, after all, running out of things to conquer - even on a scientific level. (Oohh.. please! clone me! clone me! )

On the flip side of the coin, would we not do the same to ourselves if we did let our wild sides run free?

...it would definitely cut down on the population...

 

[p_p_man]

hmm... seems like a diff. question than earlier posed if you ask me, p_p_man! Before we were talking individual mental health, now you are talking about evolution!

Yes the thread has become confusing. It's Ishmael's fault expanding the boundaries of what is after all a very simple hypothesis.

But in a way the two factors you mention are interdependent. If we are suppressing our evil side would that not have an adverse affect on our mental health, making us all psychotic, or at least unbalanced enough to affect our development?

And if we are all psychotic, which is a completely alien condition to normal evolution (psychotic creatures don't evolve they die out), then are we doing ourselves more harm than good by suppressing our evil side?



ps There I've answered it!

 

[red_rose]

ps There I've answered it!

lol

I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved.

You're like me... you use other people to come to your own conclusions! LOL j/k

 

[p_p_man]

lol

I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved.

You're like me... you use other people to come to your own conclusions! LOL j/k

The soccor thread is beginning to prove the point though.

That violent behaviour shouldn't be suppressed.

Everyones going to feel a whole lot better after they've finished insulting each other over a game.

 

[red_rose]

The soccor thread is beginning to prove the point though.

That violent behaviour shouldn't be suppressed.

Everyones going to feel a whole lot better after they've finished insulting each other over a game.

NEW QUESTION! NEW QUESTION!

Would there be so much aggression in the world without the shit stirrers??