You are basically missing some key elements in your own post. In the first paragraph you state:
"fear is an instinctive reaction to perceived danger." This is true, but. So the "Danger" is what? Something else that is full of fear? Not at all. Two animals full of fear run in opposite directions and one that is running from fear is running from something that is not fearful. So that is obviously another primal emotion, one of aggression and hostility. You go on to categorize fear as a "survival tool" and while you are absolutely correct in assessing it as a survival mechanism the disregard of other existing primal emotions is the flaw in your argument. 2nd paragraph: Gruff, really, I find it most odd that you would resort to biblical reference in an attempt to push a point when you have been one of the most outspoken atheists in here. Maybe the agave my friend? Chill Mon! 3rd paragraph: Sure thing that fear is and has been a driving force in life. Fear is one of the reasons we have built castles, forts, moats, weaponry and have contrived a myriad of social standards to control that which we are fearful of. However, what you are trying to do is update the workings of modernity with ancient and antiquated notions. The examples you present are invalid on the basis of current scientific knowledge of earthly rumblings and outbursts of an active planet. Well I have to say that your life in the desert affords you more time for all this but around here the shit hits the fan often and I have to say that the fan is a blowin and I'm a needin to goin. So I'll get back to this later. Adios Amigo! On Jul 14, 10:13 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > "... On Jul 12, 5:11 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: ..." > > > Fear is "A" primal emotion but not the only primal emotion. To debate > > on the platform of a single primal emotion seems short sighted. > > Slip, I beg to differ, but fear is THE primal emotion. It's the > primal emotion in anything that lives. No species could survive > without it. The emotion of fear -- I don't know whether it would > actually be called fear in plant species but on a simpler level It's the > most basic > survival tool we have and given my own experiences works regardless > whether I'm to stupid to be cognizant of a danger or not. > > I've heard it said by a religious psychologist that perhaps that was > god's first gift to man -- fear. Don't eat the apple or you'll lose > all this. Adam didn't fear eating the apple, he feared losing > paradise. But then -- and this is included in my discussion with > RIgsy -- Eve tempted Adam into taking a bite of the apple, of course > after she identically succumbed to the talking snake. > > But fear is and always has been our primal driving emotion. Fear of > starving, fear of the elements, fear of other creatures, fear of the > rumblings and outbursts of an active planet, Fear of the spears and > hammers from the sky. Fear has had a solid grip on our minds and > spirits since it all began. > > Most animals don't get all bent out of shape over it though. When > storms come they know of places to shelter. When the ground trembles > they simply run, not knowing where or why. But with us, we not only > have those basic reactions but we've a mind that is orders of > magnitude greater than any other known species and it works amazing > wonders. Think of nightmares. Think of the heights of paralyzing > paranoia that humans can achieve. Think of the frequency of mental > disorders most of which have their inception in a fear of one sort or > another. We create fears where none exist and then react to them > irrationally. > > I'm not saying we do not other emotions. I could not expect less of > us. After all we are humans. We expect more of ourselves. Look at > the heights and depths to which we've examined and expressed emotions > such as love, sadness, pleasure, compassion, empathy. We share some > of these with some species of animals but our species excels in the > exploration of them and endless others. There are more facets of > human experience than we can imagine, I suspect. But the one emotion > we share with every other living creature is fear and it's tied to the > strongest instinct, survival. To me that deigns the crown of > primal. > > > To draw the conclusion that all > > instances involving male domination are attributed to primal fear is > > argument by selective observation. > > It also fits all the circumstances. But I'm not just singling out > male domination. I'm saying that because fear is such a primal > emotion that there is some degree of it that factors into everything > we do. Every twinge of anxiety, every self doubt, every lack of > confidence, every defensiveness as well as every aggression regardless > how benign has roots reaching back to that primal condition. It > couldn't be otherwise. Without fear as a primal emotion there is > serious doubt we'd have survived. > > > Your belief in and/or acceptance of the Lederer view > > does not make it so and his delving into our deep past is tantamount > > to applying Platonian and Socratic principles to a modern day era > > where much of their philosophies are not applicable. > > I don't know much about Plato or Socrates (other than the latter's > ideas about argument which I learned in law), but my perspective on > Lederer is that his ideas describe a psychological philosophy that > seems to fit all the circumstances my experience has accrued. Simply, > the concept makes sense, especially given my study of Jung and man's > symbols. I think it is true that pictures speak a thousand words, and > just as true is that our symbols speak volumes. It was from Jung that > I first became aware of fear as an archetype of human behavior. And > whatever the dynamic is that men and women have going between them -- > an extraterrestrial would likely believe each half of our species > hated the other given our behavior and the symbols we have produced -- > you can bet fear is at the bottom of it. > > > My example of > > personal male/female relationships is by no means egoistically based > > but exemplifies the existence of women that prefer traditional roles > > in heterosexual relationships. The attraction aspect is irrelevant > > but the existence of that particular feminine dynamic is much the > > point. Your responses are obviously based upon your own personal > > perception and comprehension of the commentary. Semantics aside I > > think you missed some of the intent. > > Then perhaps you can bring it into focus for me. I may have missed > it. I think all I was saying is that the attraction aspect is not > unimportant since we each choose our mates -- are drawn like moths to > the flame -- to the complimentary facets and aspects in each other. > There is a lot of truth to the triteness that women chase daddies and > men chase mommies and defensiveness, rather than hiding the fact, > magnifies it. Of course that's a two-edged sword. > > > As far as the dregs issue is concerned I would have to say it applies > > to specific cities, regions, areas, hoods etc. and not to be construed > > as a descriptive of the national condition. It is not a race issue > > but simply a recognition based on personal and reported observations. > > You have to admit that once clean and decent neighborhoods have become > > cesspools over time which is the core of my point. > > It's just that it's a degrading term and that seemed to be the > attitude you were implying. But yes, it's true that any center of > population degrades into slums over time. And it's also true that > those slums will have a larger proportion of minorities than normal. > But slums get rejuvenated. Look at the turnover in London in just a > hundred years. In Brooklyn the home were I was born started out in > 1910 as a higher class single family house, tall rather than broad. > By the time I was born it had devolved into lower class housing > disaffected single mothers, single lonely men, and my mother and > grandmother as landladys. In 1958 when I stopped by the neighborhood > it was an all black slum rife with gangs. A few years ago I found the > home, just short of a hundred years old, for sale for $1.9 million and > looking a hell of a lot different than I remember on the inside. The > outside is still just as I remember. The same old tree out front > (thanks to Google Earth) whose bark I used to peel off and make jigsaw > puzzles. Cities recycle. Europe has some excellent examples of > rejuvenation of cities that go back eons. > > > Besides that I > > really just tossed that in at the end after thinking about Darwin and > > how we've veered from the ideal of natural selection. If we bred > > animals the way we breed ourselves we would have many lame and useless > > animals about. > > Hmm. I don't think we've veered from natural selection at all. We've > just refined it. Nor is breeding the cause of lame and useless > animals, human or not. It's the specific conditions which cause > lameness and uselessness (i.e., poverty, strife, famine, etc.) . Rid > ourselves of these debilitating factors and I think we'd find much > genius, talent and ability. I grieve at times over the loss of some > spectacular human beings to never being discovered or nurtured because > of those conditions. > > We have tombs for the unknown soldier but no tombs for the unknown > genius, the unknown talent, the unknown discoverer.
