The Sin of Two Extremes
Listen to this Reading
Kyle Tolle reading ‘The Sin of Two Extremes’
The universe is a complex place and humans spend a great deal of time and energy trying to understand it. Removing “unnecessary” intricacy and abstraction are two methods that let us live without getting swamped in the details. If you thought of how many billions and billions of photons hit your retina every millisecond and how your brain processes all those signals, you’d be inundated with information and soon suffer paralysis as all your faculties focused on the minutia. Luckily, our bodies and brains have evolved to let us get the information we really want; whether or not a bear is about to maul our pack-mule Teddy.
College professors are particularly in favor of abstraction. Where do you think all the models of organizational behavior, object oriented analysis, physical systems and human thought come from? They come from taking something really complex, stripping it down to bare bones, and hoping we don’t lose a few bones on the way to the museum. I really am feeling these crummy analogies today! A few quarters ago I took an organizational behavior class and the professor presented all sorts of models. The sheer number of models for motivation alone show there is considerable work to be done. One model did not contradict the others, instead it complemented them. If ever a single model can be had, it will be an amalgamation of all the current, distinct models.
One of the greatest sins of knowledge is boiling down a complex system too far. The actions humans undertake are not simply good or evil. For the sake of some discussions, it is easier to idealize the world and say that there are only two sides, but once we move out of fairy-tale land, we hit hard times. “Well, that person stole food, but it was for his starving family.” Unless you’re some authoritarian bastard or some anarchistic half-wit, you’d probably agree there is a grey area. (If you are an authoritarian bastard or a anarchistic half-wit, please, keep reading; maybe you’ll learn why you’re dumb!)
Instead of breaking all ideas, problem domains or the universe into two and only two extremes, let’s consider things to be on a continuum. The person earlier had good intentions but accomplished them in a not so good way. If you consider the person solely evil, you’re just being harsh; if you consider the person solely good, you’re being overly lenient. Even our judicial system (as woefully twisted as it may be) recognizes a gradient in crimes. Treating all convicted criminals like murderers wouldn’t accomplish much, nor would treating them all like juvenile delinquents.
Upon reflection, I noticed that in the carnivore post I said that we need to determine whether animals are like robots or humans. I recognize this was a huge mistake. It is not fair to say that animals are either robotic or humanistic. Labeling animals one of two ways is really nice and convenient, but it’s a bad idea because, for the most part, it hinders our thinking. A cricket’s mental capacity is obviously different from a dolphin’s and would fall on the robot-human gradient in a different place.
Most humans operate under the assumption that we’re the only beings around that are, as we’d say, human. An interesting question is, “What makes humans intrinsically different from any other animal?” Can we definitively say? I need to look into this topic, because I’m sure greater minds have pondered this. Humans share some likenesses to robots, and vice-versa. Can we comprehend a being which would surpass us on our end of the “human” scale? That’s doubtful. Is it possible that something could surpass us in reality? It’s possible. Is it probable? I can’t even hazard a guess.
There are cases when a dichotomy is the correct division. There are either two pennies here, are there are not two pennies here. True or false. But then again, maybe the answer is conditional or is semantically determined, in which case a continuum would more accurately express reality. Even “The Sin of Two Extremes” is a case of two extremes. I call the division of domains into two extremes a sin, whereas the division of domains into other than two extremes is not a sin. Sin and not a sin. Perhaps I can escape the quandary by saying that on a sin ladder it would get a 9.5. See, I even accommodate other-than-integer numbers and all! Whew, crisis averted.
If, in the future, I mistakenly repeat this terrocious (combination of terrible and attrocious) thought-blunder, don’t hesitate to remind me (kindly; my ego is fragile) via comments at the bottom. I am also interested in hearing your thoughts. In what way to do commonly commit the sin of two extremes? Maybe you feel uggs are pure evil and the person wearing them is consequently pure evil? Perhaps you feel cyclists are by default retarded? I’ll stop here because I don’t want to take the fun of introspection away! I do want to hear what you have to say though; I thrive on discussion! Please post your comments on here as oppposed to twitter, facebook or email, because they’ll be better appreciated here in the context of all the other comments!
Humans are intrinsically different from animals because most of our life is based on decisions that we consciously (and subconsciously) make. Animals, however, base their lives on instincts. Also, I believe the word you were looking for is anthropomorphic, human characteristics projected onto an animal, or inanimate object.
Uggs ARE pure evil!!!!
So basically what you are saying is that not everything in this world is black and white and the distinction between wrong and right can be a little fuzzy at times.
If I didn’t misquote you there then I completely agree.
I feel like this topic is begging for religion to be thrown into the mix but for simplicity’s sake I won’t bring it up because it is interesting enough without mentioning religion.
@mtnbiker727
You’re making the very error I talk about. You’re saying a being either operates primarily on instinct or decision. Most of the fundamental things I do are based on instinct; eating, breathing, thinking about women, sleeping. Most of the other stuff in my day though – classes, writing blogs, tweeting, reading – is supplementary and probably more than instinct.
It’s probably true that most of what a bee does is instinctual, but what about an ape or a whale? When an ape is not looking around for food, he’s making connections with others in the group. Would you say that is completely instinctual? We do the same thing. They can express a preference for foods or activities. How much of that is instinctual?
I think most animals have a combination of instinct and decision in their lives. There must be something else, if it exists at all, that makes us intrinsically different.
@Daniel Wagner
You’re correct in saying that not everything is black and white. Not everyone is either republican or democrat, but the current party system in America would lead you to believe that.
Matter is neither just a particle nor just a wave. The duality is fundamental to our understanding of the world, and it is only in light of this duality (and the consequent shedding of either particle/wave status) that we make real progress.
Once we open up our minds to a duality, a continuum, a gradient, we see things more accurately and closer to how they actually are.
In what respects do you think it would be interesting to bring up religion? I’m interested in seeing what you’re thinking.
I would argue that a bee does just as much interaction, if not more with others in it’s society than an ape or a whale. So much for making errors! :-p
It’s a matter of perception, I suppose. In my opinion, an animals goal is to survive and propagate… make sure it’s gene’s continue on at least until the next generation. That’s what brings about the competition, either physical actions such as fighting, or displays of power, prominence, beauty, generally overall “fitness” to prove to potential mates that his genes are strong and his offspring will survive into the future. This is why males are usually bigger, stronger, more colorful than the females, it’s called sexual dimorphism… The social interaction of animals is mainly for survival, strength in numbers, or communal food gathering, etc. rather than just general social interaction like with humans.
I would argue that a humans main goal is not just to survive and propagate, though to some people it is, there is much more to it than that. And for humans, the sexual dimorphism is obviously moreso to attract males to the females, the direct opposite of animals, but now I’m straying from the original topic….
But there are definitely gray areas in nearly every aspect of life. To some people right and wrong are one thing, but to others, right and wrong are something else completely.
@Kyle Tolle
I guess I think religion fits into this topic when we talk about the difference between animals and humans. The existence or non existence of a soul comes into play as a factor in that topic. Also when talking about what is right and wrong would be a good time to bring up religion i think.
@mtnbiker727
I know what sexual dimorphism is… I’ve been through a high school bio class, thanks. >_>
And you say you think a human’s goal is much more than survival and propogation but you give no examples. If you’re going to make that claim, please defend it somehow! Social interaction is just a way to make sure that we humans stay alive. We come together in groups to lessen the chance that something else will kill is. Herds of sheep (and tons of other animals) do the same thing. Apes have even more sophisticated socialization.
If there is anything that differentiates us from other animals, it’s got to be something else.
@Daniel Wagner
Religion is a really tricky subject. Since you can’t prove anything about religion, you can’t really argue it. You make fundamental, view-deciding assumptions based on faith. Those assumptions can’t be proved or disproved, but if you don’t agree on them, you can’t even compare arguments.
@Everyone
This post wasn’t really about right or wrong. I was saying that splitting everything into one of two camps is the wrong idea. The right/wrong was only an example. The universe is much more than a set of two opposite and opposing sides, and we need to remember that when we make arguments or models. The ideas we have of the world will be incomplete, very much lacking, and incorrect if we forget to do so.
we like to separate ourselves from animals, but in reality we are all animals. emotions ARE instincts. we like to separate them because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy, but in reality the love for your wife is a useful psychological reaction that aids in the propagation of your species, much the same way you shit your pants when a bear charges you. the only thing that truly distinguishes us among animals is the environment that shapes a human as they develop: society. children bully each other because they dont know any better, they are just acting on biological and psychological impulses to establish social status. i realize the point of your post was the fallacy of strict dichotomy (i love that word), but it got me started. people = animals. to say anything else is wishful romanticization and willful deluding.
@mtnbiker727
I disagree, I think the main goal of any living being is to survive and propagate, and that includes humans. There are many other parts to life, like emotional interactions and so forth, but those are true for humans and animals. Think about how many animals mate for life… if their “main goal” was to propagate wouldn’t it be more beneficial for them to find a new mate? Interestingly enough in some animals this monogamy rule is different for each sex. Foxes mate for life, and if the female dies the male remains alone the rest of his life; however if the male dies the female finds a new partner. It’s also very clear that animals have emotions, a mother cat will cry and cry and cry if her kittens die, and she may even starve to death. I once saw on animal planet that a mother elephant refused to leave her dead infant. She protected the corpse for days and wouldn’t eat or sleep. So yes, many animals DO socially interact and it isn’t just for survival. But then again, when you think about it, isn’t the purpose for all social interaction to increase the bonds between individuals of the same species so they have a greater chance of survival? And doesn’t that apply to humans as well? Think about the history of humans and early societies; were hunter and gatherer societies much different from chimpanzee societies?
I disagree with your view on sexual dimorphism. For one thing, not all animals have larger males. Many insects, fish, predatory birds, and some mammals have larger females. In hyenna society the females are larger and dominant in the group. As for human sexual dimorphism “obviously” being designed to attract males to females… are you serious?? Without the invention of makeup and curling irons would women really stand out that much more than men? Because actually, according to what you said about sexual dimorphism meaning males are larger, the same concept works for humans because men are larger than women. Because yes, sexual dimorphism is the systematic difference in form between the two sexes of a species, and male humans are sexually dimorphic from females.
My point is… animals have emotions too and their emotions make an impact on their lives, just like in humans. Oh, and that what you said about human sexual dimorphism was wrong.
extremes are boring. and too easy. i think we use them so often because we’re lazy.
When we perceive two extremes or camps in our process or a decision we must move past our instincts to polarize the debate into two simplistic biased terms of right or wrong at those extremes, each unbalanced; to the third truth of moral interpretation which seeks a balanced solution of purpose in grace based on justice and decency. To me this ability to interpret baskets of broken pieces for moral purpose is what separates humans from animals and resolves the sin of extremes.