Jump to content


Photo

Outisde Reading: Eugenics


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2011 - 09:07 AM

In an effort to keep my mind open about some of the potentially controversial material in the UB concerning the role of genetics in cultural progress, I decided to see what contemporary thinking about eugenics looks like. Browsing the Internet, I found the predictable quagmire of white supremacist material, as well as strident denunciations of eugenics in any form, in the academic community. As we know, it's a very polarizing issue.

I did find, however, one source that seems to be pretty well aligned with what the UB has to say on these matters. That source is an e-book:

Future Human Evolution.

This book includes a pretty useful historical overview of the subject, and a very interesting section on the genetics of altruism. The author, John Glad, is a retired professor of Jewish exile literature and politics. Although Glad's perspective on eugenics isn't exactly the same as the UB's, in my opinion, I'd say it's quite close, and certainly more detailed. The significance of this, in my view, is that it's a source to which people can be directed if they come away from reading the UB with questions or doubts about what it's saying about eugenics (even though the word "eugenics" occurs only once). Not everyone will agree with the positions that Glad takes, but the highly ethical stance that he takes, and his courage in doing so, help to counter the profoundly bad image that this subject has. It has helped me to re-examine my own thinking.

#2 Nigel Nunn

Nigel Nunn

    Poster

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 26 April 2011 - 10:42 AM

Hi Todd,

It has helped me to re-examine my own thinking.

As far as eugenics go, the UB simply suggests that as a society, we ought
to foster the normal and the stable, i.e. those who can demonstrate the
priceless ability to raise a family well. Stable families provide a foundation
for unbounded opportunity. Objections only come from an apparent ranking
of the offspring of the 19 Sangik children. One of my favorite subjects :)

Recall that the colored races normally appear one after the other in the
slow evolution of a planet's human species. And that human is defined
as that species which can interface with all seven adjutant circuits.
So a crucial part of this discussion must be how humans interact with the
"differential urges" [(401.6) 36:5.2] mediated by the Adjutants.

As I read the story of the Sangik children and consider the implied strengths,
(or specializations) of each "colored race", this is what I have in mind:

The primary "Red" race are first because their inherent intuitive capacities
make them specialists in survival. The secondary "Orange" variation, as
specialists in "group dynamics", help the Red race endure each other.

The primary "Yellow" race are specialists in managing facts -- great organizers
and town planners. The secondary "Green" variation, provide the motivation
of courageous loyalty such (ever larger) groups require.

The primary "Blue" race specialize in restless seeking out of understanding,
hungering for insight necessary to discover facts. The secondary "Indigo", as
specialists in the urge to worship, serve to lift a culture beyond the mundane.

Note that for worship to be socially valuable, it requires a stable and
robust foundation. Think what might have been, if only Adam's tribe could
have integrated these (6+1) variations on Urantia's human theme...

What a symphony!
Nigel

#3 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2011 - 12:04 PM

Hi Todd,


As far as eugenics go, the UB simply suggests that as a society, we ought
to foster the normal and the stable, i.e. those who can demonstrate the
priceless ability to raise a family well. Stable families provide a foundation
for unbounded opportunity. Objections only come from an apparent ranking
of the offspring of the 19 Sangik children. One of my favorite subjects :)


I agree that the UB supports the cultivation of the "average" type, rather than trying to create the "superior" type. As such, it can be seen as promoting a rather limited form of negative eugenics, i.e., the attempt to slow or halt the spread of those characteristics that are most dangerous. In his e-book, Glad goes further, into positive eugenics, although his views are certainly not of the "super race" type.

Glad notes the distinction that is sometimes made between "focused altruism" and "diffuse altruism". Focused altruism is the willingness of people to make sacrifices for those in their immediate genetic circle: extended family and clan. Diffuse altruism is the willingness of people to make sacrifices for those farther removed from that circle, i.e., strangers. He suggests that there may be a genetic component to these tendencies, a possibility that is certainly consistent with the UB's view of things, in that genes can make us more open to certain kinds of feelings and behaviors. At any rate, Glad offers the suggestion that a capacity for increased diffuse altruism is something that might be eugenically encouraged, and that it's potentially very important to do so. Indeed, he makes the case that a refusal to consider eugenics is itself a failure of diffuse altruism, since it ignores the situation that our descendants will have to deal with.

#4 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 April 2011 - 02:45 PM

By eugenics, I'm led to believe that the revelators mean promotion and conservation of the higher spiritual types of persons.

110:4.6 For many thousands of years, so the records of Jerusem show, in each generation there have lived fewer and fewer beings who could function safely with self-acting Adjusters. This is an alarming picture, and the supervising personalities of Satania look with favor upon the proposals of some of your more immediate planetary supervisors who advocate the inauguration of measures designed to foster and conserve the higher spiritual types of the Urantia races.



Altruism is not a feature of the animal mind. It is entirely derived from higher spiritual forces within the human mind. Therefore, in order to promote altruism of any kind, one would have to promote and conserve the higher spiritual types of persons.

103:5.1 The early evolutionary mind gives origin to a feeling of social duty and moral obligation derived chiefly from emotional fear. The more positive urge of social service and the idealism of altruism are derived from the direct impulse of the divine spirit indwelling the human mind.



In addition, altruism only develops in an environment of social inequality. Therefore, it would stand to reason that not only the higher spiritual types of persons are required.

3:5.7 2. Is altruism — service of one’s fellows — desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

64:6.34 4. Differences in status of the races and of groups within each race are essential to the development of human tolerance and altruism.



Yet we apparently don't need much in the way of inequality to foster altruism and we certainly don't need any more immoral individuals. The key to fair eugenics is determining who has lost their moral heritage. Whether or not this is a genetic trait, I cannot say with certainty.

52:2.12 It is neither tenderness nor altruism to bestow futile sympathy upon degenerated human beings, unsalvable abnormal and inferior mortals. There exist on even the most normal of the evolutionary worlds sufficient differences between individuals and between numerous social groups to provide for the full exercise of all those noble traits of altruistic sentiment and unselfish mortal ministry without perpetuating the socially unfit and the morally degenerate strains of evolving humanity. There is abundant opportunity for the exercise of tolerance and the function of altruism in behalf of those unfortunate and needy individuals who have not irretrievably lost their moral heritage and forever destroyed their spiritual birthright.



But, it seems to me that any kind of altruistic tendency, whether it be focused or diffused, would be a salvageable quality, one that puts a person into the category of "higher" spiritual type. In terms of eugenics, I'm primarily concerned with individuals who show no altruistic tendencies whatsoever. These individuals would be those considered "low or absent" spiritual types. I don't know about you, but I find that they are easy to spot. Apparently, so did Jesus.

133:1.4 First, in all attacks which might be made upon my person, I would determine whether or not the aggressor was a son of God — my brother in the flesh — and if I thought such a creature did not possess moral judgment and spiritual reason, I would unhesitatingly defend myself to the full capacity of my powers of resistance, regardless of consequences to the attacker. But I would not thus assault a fellow man of sonship status, even in self-defense. That is, I would not punish him in advance and without judgment for his assault upon me. I would by every possible artifice seek to prevent and dissuade him from making such an attack and to mitigate it in case of my failure to abort it.



According to the above quote, Jesus would not hesitate to take out an immoral dirtbag if he had to. He would treat him/her like an antisocial animal. That says a lot because he made that statement before his baptism and his full comprehension of his divine mind, which means that any of us are capable of making the same determination. It should not be hard to detect if someone is capable of moral judgment and spiritual reason. The problem lies in the fact that so few know what moral judgment and spiritual reason is. Very few. It's scary beyond words. Hollywood couldn't make a movie more scary than this even with all the zombies and vampires, killer viruses and cataclysmic disasters, holocausts and nuclear devastations combined in one film . . . it couldn't compare to the horror that's going on in real life today. Did you see that video of the young girl being attacked in McDonald's . . . need I say more? Snip, snip.

#5 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2011 - 06:44 PM

By eugenics, I'm led to believe that the revelators mean promotion and conservation of the higher spiritual types of persons.


110:4.6 For many thousands of years, so the records of Jerusem show, in each generation there have lived fewer and fewer beings who could function safely with self-acting Adjusters. This is an alarming picture, and the supervising personalities of Satania look with favor upon the proposals of some of your more immediate planetary supervisors who advocate the inauguration of measures designed to foster and conserve the higher spiritual types of the Urantia races.



That may be so, from the standpoint of supermortal overcontrol. Concerning mortal efforts at eugenics, I think the purpose is less ambitious.
This rather notorious passage comes to mind:

(585.4) 51:4.8 These six evolutionary races are destined to be blended and exalted by amalgamation with the progeny of the Adamic uplifters. But before these peoples are blended, the inferior and unfit are largely eliminated. The Planetary Prince and the Material Son, with other suitable planetary authorities, pass upon the fitness of the reproducing strains. The difficulty of executing such a radical program on Urantia consists in the absence of competent judges to pass upon the biologic fitness or unfitness of the individuals of your world races. Notwithstanding this obstacle, it seems that you ought to be able to agree upon the biologic disfellowshiping of your more markedly unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial stocks.


I interpret this as stating that although we are not in a position to do much more, due to our general ignorance, we ought to be able to implement a program of negative eugenics in the most severe cases, at least.

Altruism is not a feature of the animal mind. It is entirely derived from higher spiritual forces within the human mind. Therefore, in order to promote altruism of any kind, one would have to promote and conserve the higher spiritual types of persons.


Every time members of any species display behavior in which they give up something of benefit to themselves, or put themselves at risk, to benefit their offspring, that is altruism, as zoologists use the term. Not all creatures do it. Anyone who has had an aquarium knows that some fish will devour their own eggs as soon as they are released, if they get a chance. Mammals, on the other hand, go to great lengths to protect their young. This may be instinctive, rather than conscious, altruism, but it exists. Is is, I believe, the first step on a continuum of altruism.

103:5.1 The early evolutionary mind gives origin to a feeling of social duty and moral obligation derived chiefly from emotional fear. The more positive urge of social service and the idealism of altruism are derived from the direct impulse of the divine spirit indwelling the human mind.



This, however, neglects another step in the continuum: empathy. Empathy (a word not found in the UB). Empathy is the tendency to mirror the state of another being, especially its pain state. A creature needs to be capable of empathy in order to not be indifferent to the suffering of any being other than itself. Without empathy, conscious altruism is impossible. Among mammals, there are glimmers of empathy but it appears to be more developed in primates. Article on animal empathy

Yet we apparently don't need much in the way of inequality to foster altruism and we certainly don't need any more immoral individuals. The key to fair eugenics is determining who has lost their moral heritage. Whether or not this is a genetic trait, I cannot say with certainty.


We really don't need inequality of endowment at all to foster altruism. We only need inequality of suffering, and I don't think there's any likelihood of that disappearing anytime soon.

What is called "diffuse altruism" presupposes an absence of indifference to the suffering of those to whom one is not closely connected. At the low end of the scale is the sociopath, who is capable of no more empathy than what a lizard might muster. A sociopath is capable of understanding human suffering and altruism, but only as abstractions. He is not in any way motivated by them. It's still an open question whether sociopaths are born or made, but research points to actual brain abnormalities.

But, it seems to me that any kind of altruistic tendency, whether it be focused or diffused, would be a salvageable quality, one that puts a person into the category of "higher" spiritual type. In terms of eugenics, I'm primarily concerned with individuals who show no altruistic tendencies whatsoever. These individuals would be those considered "low or absent" spiritual types. I don't know about you, but I find that they are easy to spot. Apparently, so did Jesus.


In the case of sociopaths, I'd say it takes a certain amount of time spent with the person. They are often quite clever at mimicking empathy.

Anyway, my larger point here was that Glad's e-book converges with the UB in some respects. Sociopathy is an extreme case, but even a small increase in the average level of diffuse altruism in a large population could have very large and positive implications.

#6 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 April 2011 - 10:20 AM

Every time members of any species display behavior in which they give up something of benefit to themselves, or put themselves at risk, to benefit their offspring, that is altruism, as zoologists use the term. Not all creatures do it. Anyone who has had an aquarium knows that some fish will devour their own eggs as soon as they are released, if they get a chance. Mammals, on the other hand, go to great lengths to protect their young. This may be instinctive, rather than conscious, altruism, but it exists. Is is, I believe, the first step on a continuum of altruism.


You and the zoologists may believe this about altruism, but I don't. In order to be selfless, one must first have a "self"to forfeit. Selfhood is a property that only comes with personality and animals do not have personality. Free will is another feature of personality, and although the animal may have a form of will, it is not free will. An animal may choose to give up its life to protect its young, but that is not a free-will decision based upon moral insight; only a person can do that. Altruism requires a free-will, reflective, moral choice to forgo the "self" for another "self".

130:2.8  The dog may have a will derived from nature and augmented by training, but such a power of mind is not a spiritual force, neither is it comparable to the human will, inasmuch as it is not reflective — it is not the result of discriminating higher and moral meanings or choosing spiritual and eternal values. It is the possession of such powers of spiritual discrimination and truth choosing that makes mortal man a moral being, a creature endowed with the attributes of spiritual responsibility and the potential of eternal survival.” Jesus went on to explain that it is the absence of such mental powers in the animal which makes it forever impossible for the animal world to develop language in time or to experience anything equivalent to personality survival in eternity.

9:6.4 Selfhood of personality dignity, human or divine, immortal or potentially immortal, does not however originate in either spirit, mind, or matter; it is the bestowal of the Universal Father.



What you consider to be altruism in the animal world is really a social function of the lower mind adjutants. Just as there is a natural animal level of will, there is a natural animal level of self-consciousness, but it is not a moral self-consciousness. It is more or less a protective self-awareness, and since the female considers her offspring part of herself (coming out of her body), she extends that protective instinct to the young. The maternal instinct is an instinct and nothing else.

62:6.3 At first only the spirit of intuition could function in the instinctive and reflex behavior of the primordial animal life. With the differentiation of higher types, the spirit of understanding was able to endow such creatures with the gift of spontaneous association of ideas. Later on we observed the spirit of courage in operation; evolving animals really developed a crude form of protective self-consciousness. Subsequent to the appearance of the mammalian groups, we beheld the spirit of knowledge manifesting itself in increased measure. And the evolution of the higher mammals brought the function of the spirit of counsel, with the resulting growth of the herd instinct and the beginnings of primitive social development.

84:1.7 The mother and child relation is natural, strong, and instinctive, and one which, therefore, constrained primitive women to submit to many strange conditions and to endure untold hardships. This compelling mother love is the handicapping emotion which has always placed woman at such a tremendous disadvantage in all her struggles with man. Even at that, maternal instinct in the human species is not overpowering; it may be thwarted by ambition, selfishness, and religious conviction.



#7 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 April 2011 - 10:21 AM

This, however, neglects another step in the continuum: empathy. Empathy (a word not found in the UB). Empathy is the tendency to mirror the state of another being, especially its pain state. A creature needs to be capable of empathy in order to not be indifferent to the suffering of any being other than itself. Without empathy, conscious altruism is impossible. Among mammals, there are glimmers of empathy but it appears to be more developed in primates.


Definition of Empathy

1903, from Ger. Einfühlung (from ein "in" + Fühlung "feeling"), coined 1858 by German philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-81) as a translation of Gk. empatheia "passion, state of emotion," from en "in" (see en- (2)) + pathos "feeling" (see pathos). A term from a theory of art appreciation that maintains appreciation depends on the viewer's ability to project his personality into the viewed object.
empathic
1909, from empathy + -ic. Related: Empathically.
empathetic
1932, in psychology, from empathy on model of sympathetic and to distinguish it from empathic. Related: Empathetically.
empathize
1924, in psychology, from empathy + -ize. Related: Empathized; empathizing.


Empathy is a relatively new word coined by psychologists. It is simply a term to describe a passionate form of sympathy, of which TUB has plenty to say. Neither empathy, sympathy or pity are always good things. They require wisdom and insight in order to function alongside mercy. Too often they are emotions which become over emphasized and frequently misplaced, especially within the Christian culture. Today, even our laws and politics are based on empathy/sympathy, which is part of the problem we are having making judgments about what is defective and what is not. We don't ever want to be accused of being un-empathetic. I've always liked the fact that sympathetic and empathetic have the word pathetic in them. Pathetic has the word pathos as its root, which means suffering. But modern lingo has evolved the word to mean "inadequate". (That which induces sympathy is somehow inadequate and must be fixed.)

52:2.12 It is neither tenderness nor altruism to bestow futile sympathy upon degenerated human beings, unsalvable abnormal and inferior mortals.

137:4.17 Jesus now fully comprehended that he must constantly be on guard lest his indulgence of sympathy and pity become responsible for repeated episodes of this sort. [miracle working]

149:4.3 He pointed out that overmuch sympathy and pity may degenerate into serious emotional instability; that enthusiasm may drive on into fanaticism.

149:4.4 He exhorted his hearers to strive for originality while they shunned all tendency toward eccentricity. He pleaded for sympathy without sentimentality, piety without sanctimoniousness.

159:3.11 Teach all believers to avoid leaning upon the insecure props of false sympathy. You cannot develop strong characters out of the indulgence of self-pity; honestly endeavor to avoid the deceptive influence of mere fellowship in misery. Extend sympathy to the brave and courageous while you withhold overmuch pity from those cowardly souls who only halfheartedly stand up before the trials of living. Offer not consolation to those who lie down before their troubles without a struggle. Sympathize not with your fellows merely that they may sympathize with you in return.



A better word for empathy would be compassion, of which TUB also has much to say. Compassion implies an understanding that goes along with one's feelings; whereas empathy is pure feeling alone, which, without understanding, can become irrational. Most of the time in TUB the word "sympathy" is part of the phrase, "understanding sympathy". The "understanding" part elevates sympathy away from empathic passion to a level of compassion, away from pure "feelings and emotion" to a level of morality where mercy and love can dominate.

#8 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 April 2011 - 10:24 AM

In the case of sociopaths, I'd say it takes a certain amount of time spent with the person. They are often quite clever at mimicking empathy.


Maybe so if you're basing your assessment of a person totally on empathy, which is an emotion. It's not hard at all to determine if a person has compassion though. Compassion is a property of the soul whereas empathy is a property of the emotions. I don't know about you, but I can tell in a flash if a person has a soul and what state it's in. You can see it in their eyes without any problem, you don't even have to be a body language expert to do that. Phone conversations and internet communications are another story however . . . not so easy . . . another cultural problem of the modern age.

42:12.12 The material eyes are truly the windows of the spirit-born soul.



A creature needs to be capable of empathy in order to not be indifferent to the suffering of any being other than itself.



And of course, indifference is a huge problem in our society. It's on the sliding scale of sin:

89:10.2 Sin must be redefined as deliberate disloyalty to Deity. There are degrees of disloyalty: the partial loyalty of indecision; the divided loyalty of confliction; the dying loyalty of indifference; and the death of loyalty exhibited in devotion to godless ideals.



We're on the verge of "death of loyalty" and devotion to "godless ideals". We've kicked God out of everything, what would you expect from such a society?

#9 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 April 2011 - 12:52 PM

You and the zoologists may believe this about altruism, but I don't. In order to be selfless, one must first have a "self"to forfeit.


It's a question of what the word means. "Altruism" has two meanings, one of which applies to the instinctive behavior of some (but not all) animals. The other refers to the conscious concern for the well-being of others. I took pains to distinguish the two meanings. My point was that they are on a continuum, not that they are the same thing. If your point is that they are not on a continuum and not related, then we can discuss that. I'd say that the UB is, in general, friendly to the idea that the "higher" moral and spiritual qualities of human beings are progressive continuations of lower, i.e., instinctive qualities present in other species. I believe altruism is one of these.

What you consider to be altruism in the animal world is really a social function of the lower mind adjutants. Just as there is a natural animal level of will, there is a natural animal level of self-consciousness, but it is not a moral self-consciousness. It is more or less a protective self-awareness, and since the female considers her offspring part of herself (coming out of her body), she extends that protective instinct to the young. The maternal instinct is an instinct and nothing else.


Did I assert altruism in animals is a process of moral self-consciousness? No. Did I assert that it's an unconscious, instinctive form of altruism? Yes.

Concerning empathy, it is related to sympathy, but not quite the same thing. If you tell me that you've lost a loved one, and I feel sadness for you in response, that is sympathy. If I experience the actual grief that you experience, or something very much like it, that's empathy. As the dictionary says, empathy most often involves "vicarious participation in the emotions, ideas, or opinions of others", a kind of emotional resonance. Once again, we find traces of this in other species, particularly mammalian species, but more noticeably in primates. But even in humans, there is a large instinctual component to this participation in the feelings of others. The dictionary defines sympathy as "harmony or agreement in feeling", i.e., as in the example I gave at the beginning of this paragraph. My sadness at learning of your loss is harmonious with your grief, but it's not the very same emotion. Moreover, my sympathy is not simply caused by your pain, as empathy would be. It's caused by my understanding of the reason for your pain as well. Empathy is a simply emotional response; sympathy is an emotional response grounded in understanding, and is thus a "higher" point on the continuum. Compassion is yet a higher point, since compassion augments sympathy with a desire to help, to do something about the suffering.

As I see it, even though compassion is a much higher capacity than mere empathy, it builds upon it. If one creature is truly indifferent to the suffering of another, without a glimmer of empathy, there can be no possibility of sympathy or compassion in that creature. I've read that a farmer can slaughter a pig, with other pigs just yards away, and the other pigs won't even look up. I don't know if this is true, but it would be a good illustration of the kind of baseline state that, in a human, would count as sociopathy.

If the capacity for empathy, and thus sympathy and compassion, have some genetic determinants, then even a small improvement in this capacity in humans could have sweeping effects upon human civilization. This is completely compatible with the notion that receptivity to the Adjutant Mind Spirits has genetic determinants.

As for knowing whether someone has a soul...no, I don't. I don't have any certainty that souls exist, so I can't be sure that I have one, let alone anyone else. I've known one person who was a sociopath, beyond any doubt. There may have been others that I failed to recognize. I've read a bit about the condition and learned that in at least some cases it appears to "go away" if the sociopath manages to live into his 40s, which isn't entirely easy. They tend to make a lot of enemies. But that's another issue altogether.

#10 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 April 2011 - 02:54 PM

I was under the impression, sorry if I was wrong, that you were making a case that animal level "altruism" should be fostered because it is at the bottom of the altruism ladder; meaning, any altruism is better than no altruism. That, in light of the discussion of eugenics leads one to believe that you meant than an animal (human or otherwise) should be considered salvageable if there is any evidence at all of altruism, as defined by zoologists. I object to that idea particularly since I object to the use of the word altogether in animals. If a human displays any altruistic behavior, it's proof of Adjuster indwelling and that is a person with a soul who is salvageable, even if that person has or had horrendous behavior. I'm wondering if I'm making myself clear?

As for empathy, based on my experience, empathy is nothing more than a psychological state, an emotional affectation. It is a fad of the psychological era out of which we have still not emerged. I'm not the least bit impressed by empathy. I am impressed by compassion and I don't think that it is necessary to be empathic in order to be compassionate. There is nothing wrong with empathy, but it is not a personality trait with lasting value and I don't see it as part of any continuum but rather part of a mosaic of altered psychic states.

There is no way that I can actually feel any one's pain. Pain is a completely subjective experience. As a physician, I'm trained to look for objective evidence of pain, physical and psychic, but I can never see, measure or completely objectify pain, nor can I feel it myself. It works similarly with suffering. I can tell you that I am suffering, but if I don't give any objective evidence of suffering, you are unlikely to believe me. Then, there are those who suffer immensely and refuse to give any indication of it and will deny it when asked. It works similarly with grief. If I lose a loved one, we may both cry bitterly over my loss, but chances are, you're crying because I am crying and your grief is over my sadness rather than the ability to feel my actual grief. Or, it may be that you actually grieve the loss of my loved one for your own reasons, which is not empathy at all. Then there are those husbands I've had who pass out in the obstetric suite at the first sight of blood, but that is not from empathy, although that's what they tell their wives. It is my contention that empathy does not really exist. It is a word invented by psychiatrists to described an altered psychic state, which in my opinion, is quite often pathological or due to maladjustment.

Let's look at one incident from Jesus' life. TUB needs to speculate why Jesus cried and groaned at Lazarus' death. They can't figure it out. A modern psychologist would say it's because of empathy, but TUB never mentions empathy. They do mention sympathy, but nothing at all about empathy; and, common sense would tell us that if there's anyone who might be able to feel another person's pain as his own, it would be Jesus.

168:1.1-5 After Jesus had spent a few moments in comforting Martha and Mary, apart from the mourners, he asked them, "Where have you laid him?" Then Martha said, "Come and see." And as the Master followed on in silence with the two sorrowing sisters, he wept. When the friendly Jews who followed after them saw his tears, one of them said: "Behold how he loved him. Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind have kept this man from dying?" By this time they were standing before the family tomb, a small natural cave, or declivity, in the ledge of rock which rose up some thirty feet at the far end of the garden plot.

It is difficult to explain to human minds just why Jesus wept. While we have access to the registration of the combined human emotions and divine thoughts, as of record in the mind of the Personalized Adjuster, we are not altogether certain about the real cause of these emotional manifestations. We are inclined to believe that Jesus wept because of a number of thoughts and feelings which were going through his mind at this time, such as:
1. He felt a genuine and sorrowful sympathy for Martha and Mary; he had a real and deep human affection for these sisters who had lost their brother.
2. He was perturbed in his mind by the presence of the crowd of mourners, some sincere and some merely pretenders. He always resented these outward exhibitions of mourning. He knew the sisters loved their brother and had faith in the survival of believers. These conflicting emotions may possibly explain why he groaned as they came near the tomb.
3. He truly hesitated about bringing Lazarus back to the mortal life. His sisters really needed him, but Jesus regretted having to summon his friend back to experience the bitter persecution which he well knew Lazarus would have to endure as a result of being the subject of the greatest of all demonstrations of the divine power of the Son of Man.



But, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with eugenics. Does it? Or are we on a tangent?

#11 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:31 AM

I was under the impression, sorry if I was wrong, that you were making a case that animal level "altruism" should be fostered because it is at the bottom of the altruism ladder; meaning, any altruism is better than no altruism. That, in light of the discussion of eugenics leads one to believe that you meant than an animal (human or otherwise) should be considered salvageable if there is any evidence at all of altruism, as defined by zoologists.


I'm making the case that instinctive altruism and conscious, or moral, altruism are to some extent intertwined in animal-origin creatues such as ourselves. A stronger disposition for instinctive altruism should make a person more receptive to moral altruism. Thus, if instinctive altruism can be fostered, it would be worth doing so. I've said nothing at all about who is or isn't salvageable.

As for empathy, based on my experience, empathy is nothing more than a psychological state, an emotional affectation. It is a fad of the psychological era out of which we have still not emerged. I'm not the least bit impressed by empathy.


Yes, empathy is a psychological state. I have no idea why you add that it's "nothing more", as if it needs to be something more. I can't agree that it's a fad or an affectation.

I am impressed by compassion and I don't think that it is necessary to be empathic in order to be compassionate. There is nothing wrong with empathy, but it is not a personality trait with lasting value and I don't see it as part of any continuum but rather part of a mosaic of altered psychic states.


I disagree. I take the position that empathy is the animal-level foundation of compassion, for reasons that I've already explained.

There is no way that I can actually feel any one's pain. Pain is a completely subjective experience. As a physician, I'm trained to look for objective evidence of pain, physical and psychic, but I can never see, measure or completely objectify pain, nor can I feel it myself.


Yes, it's conceptually true that the only person who feels sensations is the person whose sensations they are. Empathy is not "feeling someone else's pain." If I seemed to imply that it is that, then I misspoke. Empathy is more like electrical induction, where one creature's pain induces similar (not identical) feelings in another. Unlike sympathy, it does not presuppose any understanding of what the other is going through; it is simply an induced response.

At the most fundamental creature level, either one is indifferent to the suffering of another or one isn't. I'm talking about the pre-reflective, pre-conceptual level of response. Empathy is the absence of indifference, at the level of pure response. If a creature is devoid of such a response, that creature isn't capable of sympathy or compassion either, because sympathy and compassion are more developed states that begin with empathy.

It is my contention that empathy does not really exist. It is a word invented by psychiatrists to described an altered psychic state, which in my opinion, is quite often pathological or due to maladjustment.


If it's an altered psychic state, pathological or not, then it exists. In any case, if you witness the suffering of a person, and to some extent you yourself suffer in response, precisely what is pathological about that?

Let's look at one incident from Jesus' life. TUB needs to speculate why Jesus cried and groaned at Lazarus' death. They can't figure it out. A modern psychologist would say it's because of empathy, but TUB never mentions empathy. They do mention sympathy, but nothing at all about empathy; and, common sense would tell us that if there's anyone who might be able to feel another person's pain as his own, it would be Jesus.


As I've already explained, where there is sympathy there is automatically empathy as well, but sympathy is what empathy becomes when it is filtered through the understanding of the rational mind. It's not about "feeling another's pain." The UB mentions sympathy rather than empathy because, in context, it's the more specifically relevant term.

But, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with eugenics. Does it? Or are we on a tangent?


The connection to eugenics is continuous with the point about altruism. If, as I maintain, the moral sentiments of sympathy and compassion are built up from the pre-moral, purely animal capacity for empathy, then if it's possible to foster the capacity for empathy, it would be desirable to do so. And again, I take this view of higher human capacities being evolved continuations of lower creature capacities to be entirely consistent with the UB's account of the overcontrol of evolution and preparation for the appearance of will creatures.

#12 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 April 2011 - 12:05 PM

I'm making the case that instinctive altruism and conscious, or moral, altruism are to some extent intertwined in animal-origin creatues such as ourselves. A stronger disposition for instinctive altruism should make a person more receptive to moral altruism. Thus, if instinctive altruism can be fostered, it would be worth doing so. I've said nothing at all about who is or isn't salvageable.


This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that there is such a thing as instinctive altruism. I think what you are calling altruism on the instinctive, lower adjutant mind level is not altruism at all. I do, however, agree that the lower mind adjutants work in conjunction with the higher mind adjutants, the spirit of worship and the spirit of wisdom. In order to be considered a human at all, one must be receptive to both of the higher mind adjutants. If those two are not functioning, then the individual is not considered human, primate maybe, but not human.

I guess what you are saying is that if the lower five mind adjutants are functioning then we have to hope that the higher adjutants will somehow take hold. But we know that this is not possible, otherwise there would be animals becoming humans all the time and so far it's never happened, except on the Disney channel.

Once the spirits of worship and wisdom begin to function in an individual, the Adjuster comes. Once the Adjuster comes the potential for altruism also comes. The source of altruism is the Adjuster; therefore, what you are calling instinctive altruism at the animal level is not altruism at all since animals are not Adjuster indwelt.

p1131:9 103:2.10 Man tends to identify the urge to be self-serving with his ego—himself. In contrast he is inclined to identify the will to be altruistic with some influence outside himself—God. And indeed is such a judgment right, for all such nonself desires do actually have their origin in the leadings of the indwelling Thought Adjuster, and this Adjuster is a fragment of God. The impulse of the spirit Monitor is realized in human consciousness as the urge to be altruistic, fellow-creature minded. At least this is the early and fundamental experience of the child mind. When the growing child fails of personality unification, the altruistic drive may become so overdeveloped as to work serious injury to the welfare of the self. A misguided conscience can become responsible for much conflict, worry, sorrow, and no end of human unhappiness.



So, what I'm trying to say in terms of eugenics is that if a person is capable of true altruism, he/she is Adjuster indwelt, a son of God and not someone who should be considered a candidate for controlled breeding with the intent of elimination or improved heredity. That's not to say that an Adjuster indwelt individual may at some time choose to deny the altruistic leadings of the Adjuster and exhibit some horribly degenerate, delinquent and immoral behavior at times. However, it is unlikely that such a person could be considered as truly antisocial until there is death of the soul and the Adjuster departs.

112:3.2 1. Spiritual (soul) death. If and when mortal man has finally rejected survival, when he has been pronounced spiritually insolvent, morontially bankrupt, in the conjoint opinion of the Adjuster and the surviving seraphim, when such co-ordinate advice has been recorded on Uversa, and after the Censors and their reflective associates have verified these findings, thereupon do the rulers of Orvonton order the immediate release of the indwelling Monitor. But this release of the Adjuster in no way affects the duties of the personal or group seraphim concerned with that Adjuster-abandoned individual. This kind of death is final in its significance irrespective of the temporary continuation of the living energies of the physical and mind mechanisms. From the cosmic standpoint the mortal is already dead; the continuing life merely indicates the persistence of the material momentum of cosmic energies.



We can and must control degenerate, delinquent and immoral behavior, but I believe that we have to prevent true, antisocial, Adjusterless individuals, those without a soul, from having access to civilized society at all. Who are these people? We should know and if we don't, we should learn how to identify them. And I don't care if they have instinctive altruism if there's no soul or potential for soul. But it seems that this is way too harsh for the average person to comprehend, and I understand that, especially in a society that has difficulty with the concept of "soul" in the first place.

71:4.16 The appearance of genuine brotherhood signifies that a social order has arrived in which all men delight in bearing one another’s burdens; they actually desire to practice the golden rule. But such an ideal society cannot be realized when either the weak or the wicked lie in wait to take unfair and unholy advantage of those who are chiefly actuated by devotion to the service of truth, beauty, and goodness. In such a situation only one course is practical: The “golden rulers” may establish a progressive society in which they live according to their ideals while maintaining an adequate defense against their benighted fellows who might seek either to exploit their pacific predilections or to destroy their advancing civilization.



TUB describes spiritual types and it appears as though the universe rulers desire to encourage the higher spiritual types. It may not yet be possible for us to determine who are the higher and lower spiritual types, or why a person chooses against Adjuster guidance and why a person might not be indwelt at all. Since we do not have the capability to determine cause (genetic or environment or both), we have to deal with effect first. Those individuals who have darkened their souls to the point of extinction should be top on the list for eugenic control for three reasons: 1.) they are a threat to civilized society; 2.) there might be a genetic predilection causing the problem; 3.) they may contribute to providing an environment that fosters the same fault in others. Identifying these individuals is the current challenge and I think using instinctive altruism as marker for potential moral altruism is a red herring.

In my opinion there are two groups of individuals who fall into the category of needing eugenic intervention: 1.) Those who are incapable of hosting an indwelling Adjuster; and, 2.) Those who have refused to host an indwelling Adjuster. Those falling into the first category are described below and should be easily identified and cared for, but prevented from reproducing. The second group are harder to identify, yet it is imperative to do so for reasons I stated above. So, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

p1241:5  113:1.3 The subnormal minded—those who do not exercise normal will power; those who do not make average decisions. This class embraces those who cannot comprehend God; they lack capacity for the intelligent worship of Deity. The subnormal beings of Urantia have a corps of seraphim, one company, with one battalion of cherubim, assigned to minister to them and to witness that justice and mercy are extended to them in the life struggles of the sphere.



#13 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 April 2011 - 03:17 PM

I take the position that empathy is the animal-level foundation of compassion, for reasons that I've already explained. . . . Empathy is more like electrical induction, where one creature's pain induces similar (not identical) feelings in another. Unlike sympathy, it does not presuppose any understanding of what the other is going through; it is simply an induced response.


So you're saying that empathy is a basic biological function which involves the traveling of a pain impulse through the nervous system of the victim directly to the nervous system of the empath, more or less as a reflex action based on the ability to intersect with another person's electrochemical neurological impulses? You know this doesn't make any sense, it's right out of sci-fi fantasy. How do you suppose this induction takes place if it's operating at the animal, instinctive level?

At the most fundamental creature level, either one is indifferent to the suffering of another or one isn't. I'm talking about the pre-reflective, pre-conceptual level of response. Empathy is the absence of indifference, at the level of pure response. If a creature is devoid of such a response, that creature isn't capable of sympathy or compassion either, because sympathy and compassion are more developed states that begin with empathy.


So, you're defining empathy as the absence of indifference to suffering and furthermore, it is a prerequisite to higher levels of concern about others. What you're saying is that without empathy, there's apathy and nothing else. I can't find evidence of this definition anywhere. Here is a short collection of the various definitions for empathy that I found on one page of a google search:

  • Empathy is feeling what somebody else feels through them.
  • Empathy:The ability to co-experience and relate to the thoughts, emotions, or experience of another without them being communicated directly by the individual.
  • Empathy: Imagine thoughts of person you feel sympathetic for.
  • Empathy- intellectual & emotional awareness and understanding of another person’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior that are distressing with emphasis on understanding.
  • Empathy: the ability to understand, perceive and feel another person’s feelings.
  • Empathy has been described as the process of understanding a person's subjective experience by vicariously sharing that experience while maintaining an observant stance.
  • Empathy is a balanced curiosity leading to a deeper understanding of another human being.
  • Empathy is the capacity to understand another person's experience from within that person's frame of reference.
  • Empathy is the ability to "put oneself in another's shoes."
  • Empathy is consideration of another person's feelings and readiness to respond to his needs without making his burden one's own.
  • Empathy is concerned with a high order of human relationship and understanding: engaged detachment.
  • In empathy, we "borrow" another's feelings to observe, feel, and understand them--but not to take them onto ourselves.
  • The person using empathy tunes into the entire inner world of the other person whereas the person using sympathy typically tunes into only those aspects with which he agrees.
  • Empathy focuses on sharing (experiencing) a person's bad and good news or feelings and understanding the bad or good news/feelings rather than feeling sorry for the person's bad news/feelings or agreeing or disagreeing with the person's beliefs, opinions, or goals.
  • Empathy is the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.
  • Empathy is the ability to understand and perceive anothers' emotions and also experience it vicariously
  • Empathy: identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives; the attribution of one's own feelings to an object
  • Empathy: Ability to imagine oneself in another's place and understand the other's feelings, desires, ideas, and actions.
  • Empathy (from the Greek εμπάθεια, "to suffer with") is commonly defined as one's ability to recognize, perceive and directly experientially feel the emotion of another.
  • Empathy is a much deeper sense of emotion and a sense that you can feel another's feelings and state of being along with feeling sympathetic to their issue.
  • Empathy is when you can relate directly to what another person is feeling.


I don't know about you, but I was exhausted after reading that list. It's clear that there is no agreement on what the word "empathy" means. But, there is a common thread among them pointing to the direct and vicarious experience of another's feelings, often imagined. There is no indication that empathy is a low level emotion, but rather a high level emotion; in fact, in direct contradiction to what you proposed, the next to last definition states that sympathy precedes or accompanies empathy.

I still say it is a manufactured psychic state. I'm not saying that it is wrong, I'm saying that it is not always real, it is often imagined and therefore cannot be a fundamental biological animal level instinct on which we build all other emotions on the altruistic ladder.

The connection to eugenics is continuous with the point about altruism. If, as I maintain, the moral sentiments of sympathy and compassion are built up from the pre-moral, purely animal capacity for empathy, then if it's possible to foster the capacity for empathy, it would be desirable to do so. And again, I take this view of higher human capacities being evolved continuations of lower creature capacities to be entirely consistent with the UB's account of the overcontrol of evolution and preparation for the appearance of will creatures.


I think it would be wrong to foster empathy because, strictly defined, I think it is an abnormal psychic state. On the other hand, I do like your concern about indifference, and I would add apathy.

The UB's account of the overcontrol of evolution in preparation to the appearance of will creatures has already happened. We're here. There will be no further evolution along those lines, meaning there will be no more new groups of will creatures appearing on the planet. The function of the adjutant mind spirits are different in human will creatures than it is in the lower animals because of the presence of the two higher adjutants and the fact that they are coordinate with the Holy Spirit, Spirit of Truth and the Thought Adjuster.

The animals we have on the planet today will not evolve into higher beings. Human beings with minimal or no function of the higher adjutant mind spirits are considered part of the subnormal group I mentioned in my previous post. They are unlikely to evolve either, but I'm not absolutely sure because of the presence of personality. Has there been any studies on subnormal individuals that prove the presence of empathy among them? I haven't seen any, have you? It seems to me that if empathy were a basic animal level feature of the human condition, then we'd actually see it more often among the subnormal groups because there is no higher emotion overriding it.

Anyway, too long again. Sorry. I am enjoying the conversation though and hope you're not put off by my challenge to your ideas. I don't mean anything personal at all. I just disagree.

#14 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2011 - 08:00 AM

So you're saying that empathy is a basic biological function which involves the traveling of a pain impulse through the nervous system of the victim directly to the nervous system of the empath, more or less as a reflex action based on the ability to intersect with another person's electrochemical neurological impulses?


No, I'm not saying that at all, beyond the fact that it's a biological function observed in some mammals. I said it was like induction, not that it was induction. Note that in an earlier message I used the analogy of resonance to talk about empathy as well. Resonance and induction aren't the same phenomenon, but they have something in common, which is the state of one entity causing a similar state in another.

You know this doesn't make any sense, it's right out of sci-fi fantasy. How do you suppose this induction takes place if it's operating at the animal, instinctive level?


The actual mechanism by which it takes place is, of course, perception. I thought that was obvious. One animal perceives that another is suffering, and that perception causes the second animal to experience something similar.

So, you're defining empathy as the absence of indifference to suffering and furthermore, it is a prerequisite to higher levels of concern about others. What you're saying is that without empathy, there's apathy and nothing else.


No, I'm not defining empathy as the absence of indifference, but empathy does entail the absence of indifference to the suffering of others, and yes, I'm asserting that it is a prerequisite to higher levels of concern about the suffering of others, notably sympathy and compassion.

Here is a short collection of the various definitions for empathy that I found on one page of a google search:

[list]
[*]Empathy is feeling what somebody else feels through them.
[*]Empathy:The ability to co-experience and relate to the thoughts, emotions, or experience of another without them being communicated directly by the individual.


These two are the best of the bunch, although not entirely adequate. We've already established that "feeling what somebody else feels" is not literally intelligible, but if interpreted to mean "feeling the sort of thing that someone else feels" it's close. The idea of "co-experience" isn't bad either, although "relate to" is hopelessly vague. However, the stipulation that the feelings are "not communicated", i.e., not reported, is helpful.

I don't know about you, but I was exhausted after reading that list. It's clear that there is no agreement on what the word "empathy" means.


Not at all, but then I do this sort of thing for a living. It's not unusual to find that dictionaries and other sources fail to capture the meaning of a concept, especially when that concept is itself evolving.

But, there is a common thread among them pointing to the direct and vicarious experience of another's feelings, often imagined. There is no indication that empathy is a low level emotion, but rather a high level emotion; in fact, in direct contradiction to what you proposed, the next to last definition states that sympathy precedes or accompanies empathy.


Yes, but I also gave some context that included the scientific study of empathy in animals. Words may be used in various ways, but I've made it as clear as I possibly can that I'm talking about a phenomenon that is not restricted to a higher cognitive process of human beings. Sympathy and compassion are higher cognitive phenomena. If you don't like the word "empathy" to refer to the instinctive phenomenon that is not limited to human, just as you don't like the use of "altruism" applied to the instinctive phenomenon, then I suppose we can coin other terms. We can, if you like, talk about "proto-sympathy" and "proto-altruism", how's that? However we designate it, my point is that these higher human sentiments are evolved versions of dispositions found in non-human species, and that indeed this appears to be the model for how the Life Carriers plan for the eventual evolutionary emergence of moral will creatures.

The animals we have on the planet today will not evolve into higher beings. Human beings with minimal or no function of the higher adjutant mind spirits are considered part of the subnormal group I mentioned in my previous post. They are unlikely to evolve either, but I'm not absolutely sure because of the presence of personality. Has there been any studies on subnormal individuals that prove the presence of empathy among them? I haven't seen any, have you? It seems to me that if empathy were a basic animal level feature of the human condition, then we'd actually see it more often among the subnormal groups because there is no higher emotion overriding it.


I'm not suggesting that other terrestrial species will evolve into higher beings because a few of them are capable of empathy. I have no idea whether that's possible, and it certainly doesn't seem likely from the UB standpoint. Concerning "subnormals", I don't know of specific studies, but then the term "subnormal" is itself not especially helpful. I have no doubt that there are individuals with severe cognitive disabilities who are capable of empathy. And I'm pretty certain that there are sociopaths who are highly intelligent but who have no capacity for empathy or any higher level of concern for others. Both kinds of people would count as subnormal, but in very different senses.

Here's another way to think about this. What are the necessary conditions for a person to be capable of feeling sympathy for another? One of them is understanding, right? That is, if you tell me of a loss or misfortune, in order to feel sympathy for you I must first understand what has happened to you. I imagine we can agree on that much. But is understanding all there is to sympathy, or is there something more? I am claiming that there's something more, that is even more basic than understanding. That's what I'm calling "empathy", because I can find no better word in English to refer to it. As I'm using the term, an animal or a severely intellectually handicapped human may be capable of empathy but no higher level of concern. Normal humans are capable of sympathy and compassion.

If this is correct, then we can consider whether

1. The capacity for empathy, or proto-sympathy, or whatever you want to call it, is bivalent or scalar. Is it all or nothing, or does it admit of degrees?
2. If scalar, then the degree of this capacity may be genetically determined.
3. People with a greater capacity for empathy have a greater capacity for sympathy and compassion.

In case it's not obvious, none of this is meant to deny that free will may be used (or abused) to override these effects. The sociopath who feels nothing for his victims, because he's perhaps congenitally incapable of feeling anything for them is one thing. The individual who learns to consciously override, or even extinguish, feelings for others is quite another.

#15 Guest_rich.sachs_*

Guest_rich.sachs_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 May 2011 - 11:45 AM

19:1.5 For example: The human mind would ordinarily crave to approach the cosmic philosophy portrayed in these revelations by proceeding from the simple and the finite to the complex and the infinite, from human origins to divine destinies. But that path does not lead to spiritual wisdom. Such a procedure is the easiest path to a certain form of genetic knowledge, but at best it can only reveal man’s origin; it reveals little or nothing about his divine destiny.

Genetic knowledge is knowledge we have at birth. We inherit these ideas (genes) from our parents with this type of knowledge having been referred to as that which is ‘deep within’, innate, inborn or instinctive. Freud referred to such as knowledge as the Id. A ‘gifted’ child is born with certain genetic ideas significantly different from other children. Genetic knowledge is present before experience. Cultural knowledge, the subject of the next chapter, is acquired after birth, by experience.

All organisms have genetic knowledge. When a tree seed (an embryo) grows it acts on its environment in a particular way.

i don't know, genetic knowledge sounds like too complicated a term for me. i'll just go with knowledge.

In an effort to keep my mind open about some of the potentially controversial material in the UB concerning the role of genetics in cultural progress, I decided to see what contemporary thinking about eugenics looks like.



#16 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Camping, Hiking, Soccer, Movies, Games,

Posted 26 May 2011 - 10:51 PM

I found that in the Urantia Book, one of the biggest transformation's I made immediately was seing animal life and human life much differently. We don't seem to know what animal's are truley feeling but the U.B lay's out the lower level's of animal living pretty well however sometimes its still hard for me to fully understand animal's and the difference between them and human's on the mindal level.

According to the U.B animal's are capable of affection. As they described this as an attribute of the Fandor. Also they describe the trait Loyalty in regards to a dog. Than it seem's as though some human being's are functioning almost 100 percent on the animal level, infact someone who's thought adjuster has left them may be completely a super animal. Obviously he/she would be the highest functioning animal on the totem pole hahah. Also the Fandor's were able to Learn some of the language of the people it was around. Learn is much different than Mimic or Parroting.

There are more attribute's associated to animal's but definitely being devoid of spiritual force's and personality they are not really using the first adjutant mind spirit's as humans use them.

All in all animal psychology is not my expertise, I am sure though if someone studied the adjutant mind spirit's, animal's and the u.b for years they would have a pretty decent understanding of what an animal is capable of. A sociopath (IMO) would be someone who is a high functioning animal capable of animal emotion's. (IMO) animals experience a form of emotion but this emotion has no real meaning to them, I think with an elephant and horse you may get into some more complex emotion, seing as U.B pinned out these 2 animal's as standout's.

Spornagia probably represent the highest example of a superanimal..The description of these creature's may give some clue's as to what animal's truly can max out at.

Edited by boomshuka, 26 May 2011 - 11:09 PM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#17 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 May 2011 - 09:50 AM

There are more attribute's associated to animal's but definitely being devoid of spiritual force's and personality they are not really using the first adjutant mind spirit's as humans use them.


I agree with you, but do you know why? It has to do with the presence and functioning of the seventh mind adjutant, the spirit of wisdom, which animals do not have. They don't have the sixth either, but the seventh is special because it functions to unify all the others, more or less upstepping all the adjutants' functioning power through unification. Otherwise they overlap one another but lack full coordination. The sixth adjutant also coordinates, but the seventh unifies. I believe that when all the seven adjutants finally make contact with a physical brain, the brain is considered human and personality begins to function.

36:5.12 7. The spirit of wisdom — the inherent tendency of all moral creatures towards orderly and progressive evolutionary advancement. This is the highest of the adjutants, the spirit co-ordinator and articulator of the work of all the others. This spirit is the secret of that inborn urge of mind creatures which initiates and maintains the practical and effective program of the ascending scale of existence; that gift of living things which accounts for their inexplicable ability to survive and, in survival, to utilize the co-ordination of all their past experience and present opportunities for the acquisition of all of everything that all of the other six mental ministers can mobilize in the mind of the organism concerned. Wisdom is the acme of intellectual performance. Wisdom is the goal of a purely mental and moral existence.

65:7.7 The adjutants function exclusively in the evolution of experiencing mind up to the level of the sixth phase, the spirit of worship. At this level there occurs that inevitable overlapping of ministry — the phenomenon of the higher reaching down to co-ordinate with the lower in anticipation of subsequent attainment of advanced levels of development. And still additional spirit ministry accompanies the action of the seventh and last adjutant, the spirit of wisdom. Throughout the ministry of the spirit world the individual never experiences abrupt transitions of spirit co-operation; always are these changes gradual and reciprocal.



The question I've never been able to answer with any certainty is, when does personality arrive? Is it concurrent with the ability of the spirit of wisdom being able to unify all the other adjutants or is it present prior and then come into full function when all seven adjutants are activated, as it implies in the description of the seventh psychic circle? At the current time, I think the revelaters deferred giving us this information on purpose, but I'm not sure. I should add that to Todd's list in the encore thread.

p1210:08 The seventh circle. This level is entered when human beings develop the powers of personal choice, individual decision, moral responsibility, and the capacity for the attainment of spiritual individuality. This signifies the united function of the seven adjutant mind-spirits under the direction of the spirit of wisdom, the encircuitment of the mortal creature in the influence of the Holy Spirit, and, on Urantia, the first functioning of the Spirit of Truth, together with the reception of a Thought Adjuster in the mortal mind. Entrance upon the seventh circle constitutes a mortal creature a truly potential citizen of the local universe.



#18 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Camping, Hiking, Soccer, Movies, Games,

Posted 28 May 2011 - 05:18 PM

Well if I had to guess I would say that children who are making their first morale choice at 5 must etleast have a personality in order to do so, otherwise they would have no free-will.....perhaps this is the age when we get our personality. or perhaps they get it sooner.....Perhap's first personal choice is 5 as well???

Edited by boomshuka, 28 May 2011 - 05:22 PM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#19 Guest_rich_*

Guest_rich_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2011 - 10:12 PM

16:8.5 Creature personality is distinguished by two self-manifesting and characteristic phenomena of mortal reactive behavior: self-consciousness and associated relative free will.

free will is overrated in our society, god's will will be done, but he doesn't want to scare people so he'll let them believe in this absolute super amount of free will that they have, but they really don't, but it takes a mature person to understand that.

Well if I had to guess I would say that children who are making their first morale choice at 5 must etleast have a personality in order to do so, otherwise they would have no free-will.....perhaps this is the age when we get our personality. or perhaps they get it sooner.....Perhap's first personal choice is 5 as well???



#20 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Camping, Hiking, Soccer, Movies, Games,

Posted 12 June 2011 - 06:13 PM

16:8.5 Creature personality is distinguished by two self-manifesting and characteristic phenomena of mortal reactive behavior: self-consciousness and associated relative free will.

free will is overrated in our society, god's will will be done, but he doesn't want to scare people so he'll let them believe in this absolute super amount of free will that they have, but they really don't, but it takes a mature person to understand that.


Yea I like these quote's relating to doing god's will.

111.5.6 This choosing of the Father’s will is the spiritual finding of the spirit Father by mortal man, even though an age must pass before the creature son may actually stand in the factual presence of God on Paradise. This choosing does not so much consist in the negation of creature will — “Not my will but yours be done” — as it consists in the creature’s positive affirmation: “It is my will that your will be done.” And if this choice is made, sooner or later will the God-choosing son find inner union (fusion) with the indwelling God fragment, while this same perfecting son will find supreme personality satisfaction in the worship communion of the personality of man and the personality of his Maker, two personalities whose creative attributes have eternally joined in self-willed mutuality of expressionthe birth of another eternal partnership of the will of man and the will of God.

118.8.11 An automatic universe reaction is stable and, in some form, continuing in the cosmos. A personality who knows God and desires to do his will, who has spirit insight, is divinely stable and eternally existent. Man’s great universe adventure consists in the transit of his mortal mind from the stability of mechanical statics to the divinity of spiritual dynamics, and he achieves this transformation by the force and constancy of his own personality decisions, in each of life’s situations declaring, “It is my will that your will be done.”


(IMO) Nothing is given up :D, (IMO) everything is gained in choosing to do god's will because God is reality, therefor you are choosing to co-ordinate yourself with reality :D.

Edited by boomshuka, 12 June 2011 - 06:14 PM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users