Registreren

[QUESTION] Instinct...

Vraag & antwoord 11 t/m 17 november 2007.

Moderator: Team VoerNatuurlijk

*Vive la Vie*
*Vive la Vie*
Berichten: 2411
Geregistreerd: di 24 jul, 2007 06:46

[QUESTION] Instinct...

Berichtdoor Armellon » di 13 nov, 2007 21:53

Instinct....


Hi Mogens

I would like to discus the issue about trusting the instinct of dogs a little bit further.
In a view topics you mentioned that trusting the instincts of domesticated dogs is something to be very careful with, and if you do, this can be risky unless you are sure the dogs instincts are intact.

I agree with you there is a risk if I follow my dogs instincts when it comes to food, for instance.
But I'm not so sure this risk is greater than following human knowledge...

Because, yes, with breeding-in certain characteristics in today's breeds, there is a big possibility the dogs have lost some too.
And some of these lost skills might very well be part of the natural instinct.
On the other hand it could be very well possible that these skills/instincts are still there, but have to be triggered. We talked earlier about the human controlled, not very natural upbringing of puppy's. Im my opinion there could also be a big risk of losing part of the instinctive reaction be.

So, yes there is a risk in trusting the dogs instinct.
But... isn't there also a risk in trusting human knowledge?
After all, we can research a lot, but it will always be within the limits of what we, as humans, CAN observe/research.
There are limits in technology, funds, human factors like perception and the object one is observing/ researching.
A beautiful example of this is the one you mentioned when it comes to measuring the bloodlevels ....

Should we not, most of what we call 'knowledge' interpret more as: an opinion of somebody or a group. Rather than "it is researched, so the outcome is true" (I won't even talk about "it is written, so it is true" or "it was on television, so it is true", I will save that for the time I write a comedy ;-))

So, in my (also not always so very humble) opinion, trusting the rules of human 'knowledge' contains a risk as well! Simply because we know so little and don't know so much.

Whatever one desides to follow, animal instinct or human knowledge, there will always be a risk of misinterpreting and in that case, the prize can be high in both cases...

When I look however at what instinct is all about (as far as we 'know'), it has almost always to do with that one basic rule of witch all living creatures are driven. Survival of individual genes or the genes of the group.
The funny thing is, when you take of all the varnish of human society and culture,
you'll see that we act basicly in everything on the same rule.

The difference is that humans almost always have a second agenda as a result of their complex culture and their 'intelligence'.
So, giving instinct the value it should deserve, would for a lot of people be the same as a: admitting there could be a natural intelligence greater than the human intelligence...
b: it would be something witch is out of our (human) control.

And with this in mind, if I would realy have to choose, I would go for my dogs instinct( even if it is possibly damaged) rather than human knowledge of wich I am certain it is not complete. Most likely I would try to find a mix of these two, but I have already the experience the two are sometimes very hard to combine.
And yes, I would take full responsibility.

It would be nice to have your commend on this issue, Mogans.



Sincerely
Brigitte

*K9-Raw Food Specialist*
*K9-Raw Food Specialist*
Berichten: 67
Geregistreerd: di 06 nov, 2007 06:30

Berichtdoor Mogens Eliasen » wo 14 nov, 2007 08:05

Hi Brigitte,

Oooooh, that's a dynamite issue! That's what speakers call "a good question", because they don't like to answer it! Too often because they have no answer...

In this case, I do have some answers, but they are not simple.

We are talking ethics and philosophy here. What do we want to believe in as the very foundation for our logic? On which fundamental beliefs do we want to build our reasoning?

In philosophy and math, these core beliefs are called AXIOMS. Axioms cannot be proven. They are taken for granted. For this reason, different philosophers of different times have all tried to boil those axioms down to something EXTREMELY fundamental - something that just nobody could possible dispute or want to dispute.

In philosophy and math, you can do this. In natural science, you can't - because you are limited by OBSERVATIONS! Nevertheless, in order to describe natural phenomenons, we HAVE to apply a simplified MODEL - which is built on philosophy and/or math.... So there is no way around dealing with this!

An example of such an axiom is Descartes's famous "cognito ergo sum", which means , "I think, therefore I must exist". He built his entire life philosophy on the basis of that very simple statement - which he took for granted and never cared about proving. But EVERYTHING ELSE in his thinking was proven with logic that all depended on this fundamental statement being true.

Problem: What if this definition actually is NOT true? Answer: then the whole things collapses like a card house...

In my thinking, this issue about "instincts" or "human control/knowledge" is NOT an "either/or", as you present it. It is a "both/and" and "none of it" at the same time.

Referring to Einstein, it is TOO SIMPLE.

As you point out, "instincts" is ALSO restricted by human observation! EVERYTHING in the world is subject to what we can experience through our senses - and we know that we have some very severe limitations in that regard. Sometimes, we can extend those senses with scientific instruments of all kinds - but that still does not cover more than "just a fraction of the universe".

The problem is that we do not even know HOW BIG A FRACTION....

The real problem with "instincts" and "survival" is that the results take thousands of years to manifest themselves. We CANNOT "speed things up" without introducing more errors in our logic.

And what is "Nature"? Aren't also humans part of "nature"? if not, why wouldn't we be? Where do you draw the limit then? The cave man? Homo Erectus? "Lucy"?

And, if humans are part of "nature", why should we then exclude the tools man has made? Again, where is the limit? The flint arrows the cave man used? The guns the white man invented for the same purposes? The nuclear bomb?

So, my basic axioms are these:

A. We do NOT know everything about everything - and we don't even know how much of the total we know.

B. We will NEVER get to know - so we have to base our decisions on INCOMPLETE KNOWLEDGE.

C. We are idiots if we ignore facts.

D. We are doomed if we don't learn from our mistakes.

E. Our decisions must SUSTAIN THE FUTURE WE WANT.

From here, it is a matter of attaching labels!

The last one is really the easiest to start with. What do we want?

You get it. THAT'S THE PROBLEM! Most people want something that is NOT sustainable in the future. They make decisions that contribute to DESTROYING THEIR FUTURE. That's dumb, isn't it?

But if they were not aware?

OK - check point C!

But really, whether you know about it or not - it ultimately doesn't matter when we are destroyed by our stupidity.

A very interesting book on this was written by Konrad Lorenz shortly before his death: "Die Sieben Totsinnen der menschlichen Zivilization" (I am not sure of the English translation of the title, but it is something like "The 7 death sins of human civilization" - I know it is translated to many languages, possibly also Dutch.)

As you can understand, if we ultimately want different results, then we will also choose different solutions.

I you want to develop a breed to be so-and-so beautiful, in accordance with some standards written by humans, then you are obviously on a completely different track than I am...

Let me explain what *I* want:

I want to maintain the dog as a gem we have borrowed from Nature - with all obligations to preserve it as such. That means: NO destruction of instincts. NO acceptance of any genes sneaking in or out that affect the dog's health, enjoyment of life, or abilities to provide joy for people on its own natural basis. But I see no problem in pursuing certain attractive traits, such as developing work abilities, exterior, etc, AS LONG AS THIS DOES NOT AFFECT THE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS, like instincts and health.

What we BORROW, we should be able to GIVE BACK in a shape that is at least as good as what we received. That means that we cannot allow ourselves to destroy the dog's fundamental survival abilities as a species.

The problem I have with the kennel clubs is that they reverse this priority and pursue cosmetic features REGARDLESS of negative health effects. No matter how cute a French Bulldog is with its big head and small hips, the breed is an unacceptable manipulation of Nature, in my opinion: there should not exist any breeds that only can give birth to pups through a Caesarian. And no matter how desirable it might be for some people to own a "killer dog" that has no bite inhibitors and thus is outright dangerous for other dogs, then I still find it completely unacceptable that ANYONE breeds such dogs.

The thing is that we humans eliminate Nature's "survival of the fittest" mechanism to keep the species in good shape, then we HAVE to replace that with some responsible custody of the species, that means applying strict breeding standards that are RELEVANT FOR THE SPECIES, not for human fashion.

An even when we do this, we are still left in limbo, when it comes down to the individual dog.... What do we do when just ONE dog shows signs of being "unfit"? My answer is that we
1) ensure that it will not pass on genes.
2) care for it as we would for a family member.

If everybody did this, then our chances of getting a dog that was genetically defunct would be extremely small.

But that is NOT the case today! Our breeding has been so corrupt for over 100 years, that we have LOTS of those "unfit" dogs around, even among the most prominent breeding stocks! Breeder in large numbers are SHOCKED when I tell them that bottling a puppy that won't suck is CRIMINAL! If a pup can't suck, it must DIE.... If the dam cannot produce milk, she should have no pups! And if she got some anyway, they must DIE.... We can't mess with this, because of our own emotions - or money.

THAT's a major, major problem - and it causes tons of suffering, for both dogs and people...

Until people UNDERSTAND that the solution is that we accept LONG-TERM RESPONSIBILITY for our breeding and forget about satisfying market demands that are based on human fashion, I don't have much hope, though.

And that is the main reason for me constantly warning that, although the natural solution SHOULD be ideal, it simply might not be, when we discuss individual cases. but that does NOT make the natural solution wrong. It proves that those individual dogs are UNFIT for passing on genes to the future.

As I say it in "The Wolf's Natural Diet - a Feeding Guide for Your Dog?":

If a dog cannot handle a natural diet, then it is not the diet that is wrong - it is the DOG!

The reason is that DIET CAME FIRST - in terms of evolution. Wolves ADJUSTED to whatever diet they could get. It has NEVER been the diet that has adjusted to the species! NEVER. Always the other way around, and so we should CONTINUE!

The modern attitude (which is going to destroy also the human race...) that we have to save EVERYTHING that lives - is going to destroy LIFE itself! ALL species, humans included, produce WAY more offspring than what Nature can sustain survival for. As long as we ignore that, we are doomed.

And the longer we wait, the more nasty the solution will be. Nature will force that solution on us, sooner or later. We CANNOT escape it - it is foolish to believe that. And it is irresponsible to leave the problem even bigger for the next generations, just because WE did not want to suffer emotionally by having to respect Nature...

Any friends left? :-)

Cheers,

Mogens
Mogens Eliasen

Editor of "The Peeing Post" - for dog lovers who respect the dog's nature as domesticated wolf: Sign up at http://k9joy.com/peeingpost

*Vive la Vie*
*Vive la Vie*
Berichten: 2411
Geregistreerd: di 24 jul, 2007 06:46

Berichtdoor Armellon » wo 14 nov, 2007 21:50

Hi Mogens,

Thank you for taking the effort for this explanation.
I know it is not directly a food-question, but I had two reasons to bring it up.
First, because it explains a little more about where your answers are 'coming from'.
Not everybody has had the opportunity to read your books before your visit here, and some of them, including myself, had not even heard about you before the announcement you would come to this forum.
(don't take this personaly, there are about 6 billion others I don't know either ;-), everything happens always at its right time...)

My seccond reason to bring the issue of instinct (in general) up is because for me, the food I give to my dogs is just one part when it comes to living with the world around us in a more natural way. For dogs, yes, food is a very important part of their lives, bur not the only one responsable for the quality of it. Housing, the way we live with hem, the way we treat them, where we draw the lines when it comes to end or extend their lives, end so on.....
So, to look also at these parts of ones dog life honestly, one does need some ethics and philosophy.
Their will be people thet feed their dogs raw food because it can be cheaper than kibble, but most people I read about on this forum do this because of the better quality of their dogs life.
But, like most people fed kibble in the past, just because they did'nt know better, the same is going on with a lot of other aspects of the dogs lives.
Giving natural food is a good start....now the rest.

Your answers on our questions and on this one about instinct are already good guidelines of a possible change of direction in thinking.

But, just for 'fun' I will tease you a little bit more ;-)....


Mogens Eliasen schreef:...
Oooooh, that's a dynamite issue! That's what speakers call "a good question", because they don't like to answer it! Too often because they have no answer...

In this case, I do have some answers, but they are not simple.

We are talking ethics and philosophy here. What do we want to believe in as the very foundation for our logic? On which fundamental beliefs do we want to build our reasoning?

In philosophy and math, these core beliefs are called AXIOMS. Axioms cannot be proven. They are taken for granted. For this reason, different philosophers of different times have all tried to boil those axioms down to something EXTREMELY fundamental - something that just nobody could possible dispute or want to dispute.

In philosophy and math, you can do this. In natural science, you can't - because you are limited by OBSERVATIONS! Nevertheless, in order to describe natural phenomenons, we HAVE to apply a simplified MODEL - which is built on philosophy and/or math.... So there is no way around dealing with this!

An example of such an axiom is Descartes's famous "cognito ergo sum", which means , "I think, therefore I must exist". He built his entire life philosophy on the basis of that very simple statement - which he took for granted and never cared about proving. But EVERYTHING ELSE in his thinking was proven with logic that all depended on this fundamental statement being true.

Problem: What if this definition actually is NOT true? Answer: then the whole things collapses like a card house...


The Axioms and philosophy where human society is based on is where for me one of the basic reasons to doubt is.
What if there has been made 'mistakes' in human thinking already before they started looking for the axioms.
(I know I shouldn't call this mistakes or 'errors, but I use the words out of poverty in English...I know no other words for it)

In my opinion there has been made two major errors in human thinking before the axioms.

First: man has put herself outside nature. As a result of this, she gave herself the licence to control everything else.
And the 'licence' to treat everything else as inferior to herself.

Second: humans have introduced a new value-system to everything; the value of (human)power and the economic value.
In itself, this is a natural thing, but in the way we humans do, we completely overrule the intrinsic value of all other life and the natural value every form of life has for the system as a hole...

If one looks at today's problems, no matter how big or small an regardless on what level, one can see these two errors....

Mogens Eliasen schreef:In my thinking, this issue about "instincts" or "human control/knowledge" is NOT an "either/or", as you present it. It is a "both/and" and "none of it" at the same time.

I think, reading your reaction on this, I must have made a mistake in explaining.
Because as far as I can see, it can never be 'either/or" in this case.
Yes, I can observe an instinctive behaviour, and yes, I can trust it or not, but I can never do anything with it without also using my brain witch contains some knowledge.
So whatever I do with it, it will always be a combination of these two.

Mogens Eliasen schreef:As you point out, "instincts" is ALSO restricted by human observation! EVERYTHING in the world is subject to what we can experience through our senses - and we know that we have some very severe limitations in that regard. Sometimes, we can extend those senses with scientific instruments of all kinds - but that still does not cover more than "just a fraction of the universe".

The problem is that we do not even know HOW BIG A FRACTION....

The real problem with "instincts" and "survival" is that the results take thousands of years to manifest themselves. We CANNOT "speed things up" without introducing more errors in our logic.

And what is "Nature"? Aren't also humans part of "nature"? if not, why wouldn't we be? Where do you draw the limit then? The cave man? Homo Erectus? "Lucy"?

And, if humans are part of "nature", why should we then exclude the tools man has made? Again, where is the limit? The flint arrows the cave man used? The guns the white man invented for the same purposes? The nuclear bomb?

So, my basic axioms are these:

A. We do NOT know everything about everything - and we don't even know how much of the total we know.

B. We will NEVER get to know - so we have to base our decisions on INCOMPLETE KNOWLEDGE.

C. We are idiots if we ignore facts.

D. We are doomed if we don't learn from our mistakes.

E. Our decisions must SUSTAIN THE FUTURE WE WANT.

From here, it is a matter of attaching labels!

The last one is really the easiest to start with. What do we want?

You get it. THAT'S THE PROBLEM! Most people want something that is NOT sustainable in the future. They make decisions that contribute to DESTROYING THEIR FUTURE. That's dumb, isn't it?

But if they were not aware?

OK - check point C!

But really, whether you know about it or not - it ultimately doesn't matter when we are destroyed by our stupidity.



I think we agree about a lot when it comes to this.
But the question I ask myself these days is, when you look at the way things go and how people live, can you blame them?

-Taking "survival of the fittest" and the instinctive reaction to secure their own genes in account...going against the stream is contradictive with both.

Children do not learn to think in the first place, they learn to copy...
Children do seldom learn to take their own responsability for their actions
And most of all, fear is the tool witch is being used by all levels to control
Although fear is a natural, build in reaction in all living creatures TO BE CAUTIOUS, humans use fear to gain complete control. On all levels: parents, friends, society's, religions, gouvernements....

As soon as people find a way to realy think, to take their own responsability and can see what fear is really about... and than still do the same as they do now... than you CAN blame them for it.

Talking about it will maybe change a few peoples minds, when they are open minded enough.
But the majority of the people will continue as the do, simply because they are not able to go against there survival-instincts.

I'm afraid we have a long way to go....


.............
this part in between, I didn't quote, because I can only agree with it or at least understand what you are saying ;-).
........

Mogens Eliasen schreef:The modern attitude (which is going to destroy also the human race...) that we have to save EVERYTHING that lives - is going to destroy LIFE itself! ALL species, humans included, produce WAY more offspring than what Nature can sustain survival for. As long as we ignore that, we are doomed.

And the longer we wait, the more nasty the solution will be. Nature will force that solution on us, sooner or later. We CANNOT escape it - it is foolish to believe that. And it is irresponsible to leave the problem even bigger for the next generations, just because WE did not want to suffer emotionally by having to respect Nature...


I have to agree on this one as well.
In my opinion, there is already something that is build-in by nature herself to destroy the human race or any other living thing that becomes to harmful for life functioning as a hole, There is always another part of the system that takes care of it and destroys the agressor of at least brings it back to an acceptable proportion....
This is how nature works, in every aspect.. from the level of bacteria to the level of the universe...
It is built in in the system, it is built in in humans as well ;-)


Mogens Eliasen schreef:Any friends left? :-)


At least one...:mrgreen:

Brigitte

*K9-Raw Food Specialist*
*K9-Raw Food Specialist*
Berichten: 67
Geregistreerd: di 06 nov, 2007 06:30

Berichtdoor Mogens Eliasen » do 15 nov, 2007 05:10

Thanks Brigitte!

You just said what needs to be said. I think I understood you, although I might have turned things around a bit so it didn't show.

I agree with you - it really all boils down to ARROGANCE: man thinks he is "something special" - and many religions support that into the extreme, like Christianity trying to make us believe that WE (humans) should be created in the picture of God, that is God should be a super-human of some kind?

RIDICULOUS. The dinosaurs could have made the same claim. Actually with more right, since they at least did not try to make gods out of themselves...

Mankind will soon be gone from this Planet, just like the dinosaurs. Nature will carry on - with some other species that are more fit for the future. We cannot destroy the Planet. We can only destroy ourselves. And I am certain that it will happen, and it will happen quite soon. It will NOT take another thousand years...

CONTROL does not HAVE to be misused and abused. It COULD, in principle, be used for diligent stewardship. But I don't believe man can do that. He is smart, also much smarter than any other species so far - but he is not smart enough to play God. And certainly not smart enough to control himself and his greed for power...

And I agree with you: We have to accept that we must LEARN TO THINK! Children do not learn this in school anymore. I remember, from my own days in high school back in the sixties in Denmark, that our teachers in History, Philosophy, Physics, and Danish all made a great effort out of teaching us to be critical to information and seriously analyze both the information itself AND the origin of that information BEFORE we would jump to any stupid conclusions.

I know for a fact that this is NOT taught at all in any school in North America - and it isn't taught any more in Denmark either. I guess Nederland and Belgie are no different.

Sad.

So, we have to teach each other then! And we CAN do that - because we have the Internet and we have communities like this forum!

The most difficult task in all planning is always to clearly specify the goal. That's our most crucial challenge. We need to fully understand what the goal is. And if we cannot raise our ambition to a level that is SUSTAINABLE in the future, then we are doomed to lose...

And that's where education becomes so critically important, because we need to learn ENOUGH about the issues we are dealing with so we can comprehend the difference between "sustainable" and "self-destructive".

A big problem here is that we will never "everything we need" in order to make a decision that is sure to do what we want. If we wait that long, there will be no decision to make, because others made those decisions for us... We have to accept that we must move on on the basis of INCOMPLETE INFORMATION.

And, in this progress, we have to accept that there is no such thing as "risk elimination". The correct name for that is DEATH.

Once we understand that and also understand that we have to take responsibility for ourselves and thus make our own decisions, INCLUDING ACCEPTING THE RISK INVOLVED IN DOING THAT, THEN we can start to enjoy the freedom we deserve.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those, who are willing to sacrifice some of their liberty in order to gain some temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security". And history shows that they won't get any of them either...

As you pointed out, in complete agreement with old Benjamin, FREEDOM and FEAR are MATES! We cannot separate them! You have no freedom if you don't accept the fear that follows along with the responsibility. And what is "fear"? It is a Fantasy Event that Appears to be Real. It is all in our brain.

And do we control fear? Answer: BY DOING WHAT WE THINK WE CAN'T DO. Anyone who has served in the military will know this. Bravery is not the absence of fear. You win your victory because you take the action you know is required, REGARDLESS of your fear!

What this has to do with feeding?

EVERYTHING!

You fear feeding raw natural food? DO it then, and you will see that your fear is not justified.

And what about those cases where dogs have died?

My counter question: What about those soldiers who fell? Do they make the whole battle meaningless? Anyone who would rather have been part of "Das Dritte Reich" instead of EU?

Yes, I know, there are dogs that have certain troubles with raw food, and we have discussed a lot why that is. And that does NOT make raw food "wrong". It only makes those dogs unfit for breeding and, hopefully, also subject to extra care from their owner's side.

The reason for feeding raw is NOT that it is easier, cheaper, or more delicious for the dogs. The reason is that this is the ONLY way we can indeed take responsible custody of Canis Lupus Familiaris, so that this species potentially COULD be returned to Nature, better suited for survival than ever.

But I am fully aware that this is where I am running into a lot of conflict with all kinds of dog people, because A LOT of people don't like this perspective/goal! Because it conflicts with their own personal self-centered objectives...

Their reasons for having a dog are generally very selfish. They accept no responsibility for the breed. The Kennel Clubs are the very worst! They are the ones that really SHOULD make a good example for everybody, and they completely fail on that account! The whole show around dog shows have absolutely NOTHING to do with preserving the species as fit for survival. Basset hounds were bred with short legs so they would be too clumsy to catch any prey - because the HUNTERS wanted that fun for themselves!

Almost all other breeds have gone through something similar, with very few exceptions. I particularly remember back in the beginning of the nineties, when the Border Collie Club in in the USA was requested by the American Kennel Club to "streamline" its standard for what coloring was acceptable in the breed. The AKC was not OK with the BC club allowing all kinds of colors, all kinds of body sizes, all kinds of ear positions, ranging from upright to hanging. Those BC "weirdos" cared about those dogs being good at HERDING SHEEP - and they based their breeding on PERFORMANCE, not looks. They refused to honor the demands, as it seriously would reduce their valuable breeding stock - and got expelled from the kennel club....

Sheep herding performance has a LOT to do with "good health" and "survival of the fittest" - as it is based on strong body functions and healthy hunting instincts. FAR MORE IMPORTANT that stupid concerns about mixed colors and ear positions. Who cares? Well, the BC club did. But the AKC did not - it had a different objective that had nothing to do with what was good for the dogs or the breed.

And I know - we do not live in a perfect world, so my objectives might not be easy to reach. Also, we might not even always KNOW if what we do will indeed work towards that objective or not...

But here is what my Dad taught me as a kid: "It is not the result that counts, but the intention that was behind it. If you did not achieve what you intended, you learn from your mistake, correct it, and try again. Those who blame you for the mistake are your enemies. Those who praise you for your intention, support your perseverance and enjoy your accomplishments are your friends. That's how you learn the difference."

In fact, there is no other way of dealing with uncertainty and limitation of knowledge. I can live with mistakes. It is much harder to live with people refusing to correct them.

And it is even harder to live with people who are happy to sacrifice long-term sustainability on the altar of their own short-term selfish goals.

I don't think we can do with just one hug, Brigitte... :-)

Cheers,

Mogens
Mogens Eliasen

Editor of "The Peeing Post" - for dog lovers who respect the dog's nature as domesticated wolf: Sign up at http://k9joy.com/peeingpost

*Dol op oudjes*
*Dol op oudjes*
Avatar gebruiker
Berichten: 1600
Geregistreerd: ma 10 jul, 2006 17:53

Berichtdoor K9Luna » do 15 nov, 2007 14:06

Mogens Eliasen schreef:
Any friends left? :-)

Cheers,

Mogens


No hard feeling :D

I find this a very interesting topic!
It gives me many to think about and also it's nice to read that there are more people tinking about this kind of things whetter it gomes to dogs or humanlive...

What you say Brigitte... everything comes at the right time...
Groetjes,

Tanja

Afbeelding

*Dol op oudjes*
*Dol op oudjes*
Avatar gebruiker
Berichten: 1600
Geregistreerd: ma 10 jul, 2006 17:53

Berichtdoor K9Luna » do 15 nov, 2007 14:07

Forgot to ad my name....
Greetzzzzzzz,
Tanja
Groetjes,

Tanja

Afbeelding

Gevorderde
Gevorderde
Berichten: 931
Geregistreerd: zo 19 aug, 2007 11:48
Woonplaats: Leusden

Berichtdoor Jacksel » do 15 nov, 2007 15:03

I love the phrase about fears (I have anxiety problems ;) )... Also like reading this discussion, I love to think aand debate about these things. Just not able to at the moment, too busy to let my brains simply spin away on quest...
Groetjes Karin, Jamey, Yore!
Afbeelding

*Vive la Vie*
*Vive la Vie*
Berichten: 2411
Geregistreerd: di 24 jul, 2007 06:46

Berichtdoor Armellon » do 15 nov, 2007 20:16

Mogens Eliasen schreef:Thanks Brigitte!

You just said what needs to be said. I think I understood you, although I might have turned things around a bit so it didn't show.

I agree with you - it really all boils down to ARROGANCE: man thinks he is "something special" - and many religions support that into the extreme, like Christianity trying to make us believe that WE (humans) should be created in the picture of God, that is God should be a super-human of some kind?

RIDICULOUS. The dinosaurs could have made the same claim. Actually with more right, since they at least did not try to make gods out of themselves...

Mankind will soon be gone from this Planet, just like the dinosaurs. Nature will carry on - with some other species that are more fit for the future. We cannot destroy the Planet. We can only destroy ourselves. And I am certain that it will happen, and it will happen quite soon. It will NOT take another thousand years...

CONTROL does not HAVE to be misused and abused. It COULD, in principle, be used for diligent stewardship. But I don't believe man can do that. He is smart, also much smarter than any other species so far - but he is not smart enough to play God. And certainly not smart enough to control himself and his greed for power...

And I agree with you: We have to accept that we must LEARN TO THINK! Children do not learn this in school anymore. I remember, from my own days in high school back in the sixties in Denmark, that our teachers in History, Philosophy, Physics, and Danish all made a great effort out of teaching us to be critical to information and seriously analyze both the information itself AND the origin of that information BEFORE we would jump to any stupid conclusions.

I know for a fact that this is NOT taught at all in any school in North America - and it isn't taught any more in Denmark either. I guess Nederland and Belgie are no different.

Sad.


I'm affraid I have to disagree with you here.
Because if you are right and education in the sixties was so much better when it comes to 'learning to think', things would be a lot better these day's....
Seems to me thoug nothing changed... if not, things got worse...
I think there were exeptions in the sixties, as will there also be today.
But in general, education has ALWAYS been based on copying an accepting authority... teatcher knows -> student accepts this knowledge as true...
If not, if you start or try to think for yourself, this can mean you grow into a strong personality but it means also most of the time you do not graduate....
Similar kind of learning we see earlier at home with your family...

Yes, I know this is not all black and white...but it is the basics of learning in general, at least for as far back as we know of.

The only real exeptions I know off (but I never realy got into this, so undoubtedly there will be a lot more examples) were the High IQ children in Socialistic Russia.
They were picked out at a very young age en got often a very individual training, also with a lot of training in learning to think.
Why? Because the country needed this abbility....Why don't they do this in general.........;-)



Mogens Eliasen schreef:So, we have to teach each other then! And we CAN do that - because we have the Internet and we have communities like this forum!

The most difficult task in all planning is always to clearly specify the goal. That's our most crucial challenge. We need to fully understand what the goal is. And if we cannot raise our ambition to a level that is SUSTAINABLE in the future, then we are doomed to lose...

And that's where education becomes so critically important, because we need to learn ENOUGH about the issues we are dealing with so we can comprehend the difference between "sustainable" and "self-destructive".

A big problem here is that we will never "everything we need" in order to make a decision that is sure to do what we want. If we wait that long, there will be no decision to make, because others made those decisions for us... We have to accept that we must move on on the basis of INCOMPLETE INFORMATION.


Isn't it possible that , not having all the information, is only a problem if we continue to think WE, HUMANS should be in complete control of everything all the time.....?


Mogens Eliasen schreef:And, in this progress, we have to accept that there is no such thing as "risk elimination". The correct name for that is DEATH.


:D

......



Mogens Eliasen schreef:I don't think we can do with just one hug, Brigitte...


Well, if I accomplish my goal, it can be very well possible you'll find me in 2 or 3 years somewhere 'hiding' in one of the forests of your country
:mrgreen:

Brigitte

*K9-Raw Food Specialist*
*K9-Raw Food Specialist*
Berichten: 67
Geregistreerd: di 06 nov, 2007 06:30

Berichtdoor Mogens Eliasen » vr 16 nov, 2007 08:22

Hi Brigitte,

Sure, I can find a few hiding places for you in BC! :-)

We actually agree on the education issue. Nowadays, society does not need a lot of "thinkers" - they are unruly and obnoxious and don't pay taxes! Because they know what it takes to avoid it. Legally. (That's my other business: http://freedomfromtaxes.com)

Government and big business want CONTROLLABLE SALARY SLAVES and only very few who can lead them.

I might just have been extremely lucky with my education - because since grade 10, I have not been seriously exposed to any attempts from my teachers' side to become a copy-monkey. Even in the Military! All my education as army officer was focused on teaching me to make the most with the minimum means we had - using creativity, strong decision-making, and sound management of people and resources. When I had to work with US officers in the NATO headquarter in Rendsburg, Germany, I was SHOCKED to learn how STUPID they were...! I mean, they obviously had learned NOTHING but obeying orders and passing them on....

Not having "all the information" will ALWAYS imply a risk of making a decision that does not lead to what we expected. But so be it! As long as we at least ACKNOWLEDGE this, we have a CHANCE of correcting our mistakes by learning from them.

If we assume that "we know it all", then we cannot correct our mistakes, because we did not make any! Instead, we blame others for what went wrong - and we will never reach our objective.... Unless it is to destroy ourselves...

And just remember - we are still talking about dogs and food - because those very same principles apply more than anything to the way we decide what to feed our dogs and how...

We HAVE to get of those "comfort boxes" and accept that it might HURT to think, but there is no way around it.

Cheers,

Mogens
Mogens Eliasen

Editor of "The Peeing Post" - for dog lovers who respect the dog's nature as domesticated wolf: Sign up at http://k9joy.com/peeingpost

Keer terug naar Gastschrijver Mogens Eliasen (2007)

Wie is er online

Gebruikers op dit forum: Geen geregistreerde gebruikers en 1 gast