An episode of Peep Show has Mark wanting to get out of marriage and Jeremy gives him the perfect excuse by telling him he has kissed his bride. Mark is both relieved and angry, at the same time.
In classical science everything has some cause. In the Peep Show episode a single event (Jeremy kissing his fiance) has caused two quite distinct processes in his mind: the relief that he can get what he wants and not marry his fiance, but also the anger that his best friend has betrayed him. How can a single event be viewed in two different ways at the same time by the same mind? It is because any number of narratives or stories can be told about the things in the world. This is because of what the Buddhists call sunyata, which is to say that in one story the kiss is an act of betrayal, while in the another story the kiss is a means to an end -- in other words the kiss by itself is neither and both!
Originally this thought came to me considering group selection and alarm calls in birds, after seeing a nearby bird give an alarm call along a river in Oxfordshire. One story says that the bird gives the alarm call because it wishes to help its friends. Another story says that the gene causing such behaviour is prevalent in the population because groups with this gene do better than groups without this gene. Another story says (and this is the one I realised after years of pondering is the truth) that the bird gives the call because upsetting all the birds in the area will distract the predator and enable it to escape in a flock. Now in this situation we might say the bird acts because it wants company when it escapes. But why don't other birds stay down when they hear the call and let the calling bird be preyed upon? In this story we say it is in their interests to escape the predator also. What this creates then is a situation when a gene to call spreads and one individual giving the call may feel they want company when they escape, while those hearing the call feel fear and save themselves. However in another story the group can be seen to working together, alothough no individual is actually thinking this.
It made me realise that much (if not all of Human life) is made up of people operating at one level of personal interest, and perhaps co-ordinating their actions by accident or not, and trying to believe in a narrative where they are really working together. Does this suggest that really working together is only possible when people don't focus too much on personal narraitives? Is this why Socialism has failed so far?
A search for happiness in poverty. Happiness with personal loss, and a challenge to the wisdom of economic growth and environmental exploitation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Done it: proof that Jewish thinking is limited. Spent most of the day avoiding triggering ChatGPT but it got there.
So previously I was accused of Anti-Semitism but done carefully ChatGPT will go there. The point in simple terms is that being a Jew binds y...
-
The classic antimony is between : (1) action that is chosen freely and (2) action that comes about through physical causation. To date no ...
-
Well that was quite interesting ChatGPT can't really "think" of anything to detract from the argument that Jews have no clai...
-
There are few people in England I meet these days who do not think we are being ruled by an non-democratic elite. The question is just who t...