312: The Brain, Joy and Happiness

Evolution created emotions as means to improve the chances on survival and procreation. Here we focus on the evolutionary development of emotions.

As the philosophical and scientific literature shows, we can discuss forever about the classification of emotions

Daniel Goleman, psychologist and writer of the book on the social IQ once had a talk with the Dalai Lama and learnt that buddhism recognized tenthousands of destructive emotions.

I think we better stick to a more simple classification as formulated by Paul Ekman(1934 -…), psychologist.

Against the view of many anthropologists, including Margaret Mead, Ekman found that facial expressions of emotion are not culturally specific, but identical for different cultures.

This fact advocated the idea that facial expressions, as Darwin once asserted, are biologically determined.

A generally accepted classification is: basic emotions and complex emotion.The complex emotions are more culturally driven and therefor evolutionary more recent.

An emotion like envy, for instance, you can't have on your own. There must be someone else to be envious of, while fear and joy can be individually experienced.

We'll follow the classification of Ekman and regard fear, joy, grief, anger, marvel and disgust as basic emotions. They come with the facial expressions, which showed to be universal.

At New Year we often wish each other a good health for the coming year, but is that our ultimate goal of happiness?

When you think it over, it becomes clear that we mainly want to be healthy because then we are closer to happiness and to knowing joy in life.

So, joy and happiness are more likely our ultimate goals than health. In the "Declaration of Independence " of the USA it is stated literally that we are endowed "with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

This is an interesting statement, for to see the pursuit of happiness as a human right, implies at least that it makes sense to pursue happiness.

Does it also promise us, that when we pursue happiness, we also will achieve it? Do we believe that today?

If so, where does this idea come from, because a lot of people still believe that real happiness will only be found in the afterlife.

It was during the Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th century, that the Idea emerged that a human being can achieve happiness in THIS earthly life.

Happiness now was called the normal condition of man, not a gift of God or a twist of fate, but something that man is entitled to by nature, something, which could be achieved by everyone.

Joy and happiness can be regarded as the most positive emotions and yet there is little scientific literature about them.

One reason is of course, that the concept of happiness is pretty vague and no one has as yet found a satisfactory definition for joy and happiness.

Let's not wind up in an endless debate about the definition of happiness and joy for the moment, but listen to a philosopher of the enlightenment, John Locke (1632 -1704).

Some of you may think, ok…. joy is indeed an emotion, but happiness is more a state of being. True, joy is more a part of happiness.

According to Locke happiness consisted of a combination of joys. But what combination of how many joys? At least Locke is right, that experiencing joy, increases the chance to feel happy.

Next lecture we'll go into detail and explain how evolution wired our brain with the possibility to experience joy and happiness and what it means evolutionary, that happiness is our goal in life.


The Discussion

[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you...and be happy ^_^
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:22] Doodus Moose: a baby smiles when you give it attention - is that joy or programming?
[13:23] herman Bergson: THAT is a real special thing doodus...
[13:23] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): heard that question before...
[13:23] herman Bergson: It shows that joy is innate...
[13:23] BALDUR Joubert: facial expression.... inborn
[13:23] herman Bergson: indeed Baldur...
[13:23] Doodus Moose: perhaps a part of innocence?
[13:23] herman Bergson: I dont see the connection Doodus
[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: lol joy -happinesss and now innocense?
[13:24] Mick Nerido: Is laughter Joy or happiness?
[13:24] herman Bergson: innocence is a pretty religious concept
[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: we will get lost in words...
[13:24] herman Bergson: Laughter is joy Mick
[13:24] Doodus Moose: innocence as opposed to the complexities we learn
[13:24] Doodus Moose: sarcasm, pity, etc
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: now i feel a sudden joy
[13:25] herman Bergson: I think you should keep in mind the disticntion between basic and complex emotions
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: cause LHC have broken a NEW WORLD RECORD
[13:25] BALDUR Joubert: a child ripping of the legs of a spider..sarcasm or innocense?
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: highest power ever now
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:25] herman Bergson: what you are refering to Doodus are complex emotions...social feelings
[13:25] Mick Nerido: People laugh differently so do they experience joy differently?
[13:26] Blackrose Baroque: [13:24] BALDUR Joubert: a child ripping of the legs of a spider..sarcasm or innocnese? how can you find any joy or hapiness in this?
[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: a child could...
[13:26] herman Bergson: It is even more complex Mick....some people shed tears while they are infact absolutely happy
[13:26] Mick Nerido: tears of joy
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: ah yes that can also be a reaction
[13:27] Doodus Moose: that was my father as he experienced music - his only demonstrated emotion
[13:27] Blackrose Baroque: yes my mommy always cries when she is so happy
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: i've experienced that too
[13:27] Mick Nerido: Me also
[13:27] herman Bergson: Interesting point Doodus..I'll get to that in the next lecture
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: you laugh and cry at same time
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: really overwhelming feeling
[13:28] Mick Nerido: Laughter is involentary but we laugh at differn things at different timmes in our lives does joy evolve?
[13:29] herman Bergson: You can write a book about laughter..
[13:29] herman Bergson: Aristotle did...
[13:30] herman Bergson: and in The name of the Rose by Umberto Ecco it ended up in the destruction of a monestery by fire...^_^
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: I laugh a lot cause feels really nice
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: and when i feel really good i can let it go until i rol on the floor laughing
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: aristoteles did' ? didn't it but in the name of the rose:)?
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: really nice feeling
[13:30] Mick Nerido: Not copies left?
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: happens kind of often when i'm here in sl
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: sena connery couldn't save it......lol
[13:31] herman Bergson: No he couldnt Baldur :-((
[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: laughter lost for us.......
[13:32] herman Bergson: By the way..watched La guerre du feu last night Baldur...
[13:32] herman Bergson: but that among us
[13:32] herman Bergson: ok...
[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: smile ok we'll talk that over one day:)
[13:32] herman Bergson: what it is all about ia how joy and happiness are wired in the brain by evolution...
[13:33] Doodus Moose: perhaps building on reward and avoidance (hippocampus)?
[13:33] herman Bergson: next lecture I'll give you the evolutionary picture...
[13:33] BALDUR Joubert: help....
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: oki
[13:34] herman Bergson: Is there a doctor in the room...Baldur is calling for help!!!
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: please make a clear distinction between evolution and development of brain
[13:34] Mick Nerido: Why did it say presuit of rather than the attainment of happiness?
[13:34] herman Bergson: oh yes Baldur...
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: one genetics the other physical...
[13:34] Doodus Moose: a pursuit does not guarantee attainment
[13:35] herman Bergson: No Doodus...
[13:35] herman Bergson: that is the mystery of happiness…
[13:35] Mick Nerido: it could have been written the right to happiness
[13:35] herman Bergson: are you happy.....??? they alway yell...and the public answers YYYEEEAAAAHHHH
[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: happiness is in the pursuit say some wise men:)
[13:36] Doodus Moose: :-)
[13:36] herman Bergson: I read a book about the history of happiness...the idea of happiness to be exact...
[13:36] herman Bergson: and after reading the book I wasn't happy at all..kind of disappointed actually ^_^
[13:37] Mick Nerido: No happy ending
[13:37] herman Bergson: 450 pages for no happiness :-)
[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: gone with the wind lol
[13:37] herman Bergson: no happy ending indeed Mick :-)
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:38] Mick Nerido: I bet the author was happy when he finished the book
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: that sound not good, if its about happiness it should make u happy at least
[13:38] Blackrose Baroque: lol Mick
[13:38] herman Bergson: lol I guess he was...
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: haha
[13:38] Anja Tigerfish: Hihihi
[13:39] herman Bergson: Well..let's wait till next lecture...maybe afterwards you might feel a little happier then
[13:39] herman Bergson: So..thank you all for your participation...
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:39] BALDUR Joubert: just one more question..
[13:39] herman Bergson: See you next Thursday in our search for happiness...:-)
[13:40] herman Bergson: Sure Baldur go ahead
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: sounds nice Herman ㋡
[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: you talked about cutural and ..wait....
[13:40] herman Bergson: I wait...:-)
[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: sorry, lol i ave to scroll back..
[13:41] herman Bergson: we all wait ^_^ ...
[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: basic..lol..
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:41] herman Bergson: yes basic and complex emotions...
[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: basic ..what do you mean with basic in contrast to cultural...
[13:42] Blackrose Baroque: dripping icecream on my skirt..
[13:42] herman Bergson: Blackrose..plz!!! Watch out
[13:42] herman Bergson: Well...
[13:42] Blackrose Baroque: sorry sir:)
[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: someone give blackrose a kleenex?
[13:42] herman Bergson: important point Baldur...
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: heheh
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: u should eat it BEFORE it melts then
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:43] Blackrose Baroque: ow..yes?
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: but thats tricky and u dont wanna rush something tasty
[13:43] herman Bergson: The basic idea about emotions in an evolutionary sense is that they helped us to survive and procreate..
[13:43] Blackrose Baroque: this is my happiness now..my icecream
[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: ok.. survival codes
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: which also use to leave my clothes in a mess afterwards, at least if its a warm day
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: heh
[13:44] Doodus Moose: hence the line from the movie "what do i see in him - he makes me laugh".
[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: especially in social groups
[13:44] herman Bergson: emotions were the mechanisms that made social behavior possible...
[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: ok..agree
[13:44] herman Bergson: the basic emotions like fear and joy can be experiences individually...
[13:44] herman Bergson: with them you can survive...
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: hm...
[13:45] herman Bergson: the complex emotions are culturally determined in the sense that you need the other for that ..
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: so microbes have fear anr joy?¨
[13:45] herman Bergson: envy is such an emotion..
[13:45] herman Bergson: you only can be envious of someone else...
[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: i mean simple organisms live much longer than complex ones...
[13:46] herman Bergson: sexual jealousy is such an emotion...
[13:46] herman Bergson: that is not true Baldur...so far so good...we are still here!
[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: you said individulal experience.. that would mean independent of a social environment
[13:47] herman Bergson: and I claim that we are the most complex ones on this planet ^_^
[13:47] Blackrose Baroque: i think it's important to laugh..it makes a bond between people..
[13:47] Blackrose Baroque: when you smile...at some one..you get a smile back
[13:47] herman Bergson: yes...I can experience fear myself...is not related to others
[13:47] Mick Nerido: People joke a lot when they are afraid
[13:48] herman Bergson: we will get to that in the next lecture Blackrose!
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: yes and when someone laygh u start laughing as well
[13:48] BALDUR Joubert: exist longer smile sorry.. i hat to be imprecise:)
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: just the sound make u do that
[13:48] BALDUR Joubert: smile but i think we have to get deeper into lets laugh theories lol
[13:48] BALDUR Joubert: in class..
[13:48] Doodus Moose: what proceses causes another to sneeze once someone else sneezes?
[13:48] Doodus Moose: (just wondering)
[13:48] BALDUR Joubert: hayfever dood?
[13:49] Doodus Moose: or yawning
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: hmm that i have never experienced howeever
[13:49] Blackrose Baroque: nome either
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: yawning however
[13:49] herman Bergson: it is a common phenomenon Doodus...mimicry it is called I think...
[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: oh you sneeze when you yawn' '
[13:49] Mick Nerido: I have to walk my dogs bye...
[13:49] Blackrose Baroque: bye Mick
[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: some fart ..grin.. sorry but true..lol
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: when everyone around you seem to be bored and tired u get also the same way, cause thats the general feeling in the place sort of
[13:50] herman Bergson: copying the gestures of other to show social connection
[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: mirror neurons.. smile they pop up all the time:)
[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i was logged out
[13:50] herman Bergson: Are you ok Gemma???
[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ☆*¨¨*:• I'm Back! What'd I Miss?? •:*¨¨*☆
[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Hey!
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: wb Gemma
[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: fun -joy and happiness gemma:)
[13:51] Blackrose Baroque: you missed a lot of joy Gemma
[13:51] Anja Tigerfish: -WB
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:51] herman Bergson: ok..I think next lecture will be fun then....:-)
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i wil have to read the blog of this one
[13:52] Doodus Moose: time to eat over here - thanks everyone!!
[13:52] herman Bergson: Thank you all....
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: cu Doodus ㋡
[13:52] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: Thank You herman - thanx everyone - enjoy :-)
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: oki
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: cu next time then ㋡
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: and some of u in a while
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: nice as usual this
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:53] Blackrose Baroque: thank you sir for the lecture
[13:53] herman Bergson: My pleasure Blackrose
[13:53] Blackrose Baroque: bye bye

270: The Design of the Mind

Our world is full of supernatural beliefs. Do you hold supernatural beliefs and can you answer the question WHY you do so? Just this morning in my newspaper… a short report about the Norwegian royal princess Märtha Louise. She is 38.

In an interview she had revealed that she could talk with the dead and talk with angels, which caused a storm of criticism. And the criticism is from my perspective really funny.

The protestant bishop, Laila Riksaanen Dahl told on the Norwegian TV that the dead are the exclusive business of God and that they should be left in peace.
QUOTE: " To change this, can unleash dark forces, which we do not know."

I live with superstition in my own life too. Look at this picture. This object I have in my left pocket… yes definitely the left pocket. Nothing else may be in that pocket, no coins, no keys..only this object.

It has three parts. That coin with a hole in it is a so called age coin, used for instance in discos to prevent too young people to get access to cigarette machines. I found it on the stairs of the entrance of the institute I worked. I found it on the last working day before my retirement. I recognized its symbolic meaning and kept it.

The little animal may be hard to recognize, but it is a small elephant. When my wife was born her parents really picked her first name from the newspaper. It was the name of a little elephant born in a Dutch zoo on the same day.

The other part is St. Christopher.Christopher has always been a widely popular saint, being especially revered by athletes, mariners, ferrymen, and travelers. So, I guess that he helps to keep me on the right track.

Quite a lot of nonsense beliefs, isn't it. (^_^) Ok, I plead guilty, but before you throw the first stone (seems to be popular again these days;-) look at your own life, where you may feel uncomfortable on Fryday the 13th, with a black cat or deeply guilty when you have committed a real sin in eyes of your God in your opinion.

As we saw in our former lecture, this can not be simply attributed to our education or our culture. Especially because among other things, this does hardly explain why we are so WILLING to cherish our supernatural beliefs.

This willingness is just in our mind, or to use Hood's words, we find the explanation in the design of our mind. "Design" means the organized way how our brain is equipped to understand and interpret the world.

Just like our other body parts have evolved during millions of years, in the same way has our brain gone through an evolution to help us survive.

Most scientists nowadays agree with the conclusion, that our brain is equipped with a set of specialized, internal mechanisms, which make it possible for us to process our experiences. In other words: we posses a mental toolbox.

This makes me think of the epistemological debate about the origin of knowledge and how we discuss ontology. Can we conclude that Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) is the winner of the debate?

Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired through experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge.

Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions and empty concepts, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason.

Then John Locke (1632 - 1704) is the looser. He postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa. Contrary to pre-existing Cartesian philosophy, he maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception.

It can no longer be denied that the brain is an active player in our existence and not just a passive organ that first has to be filled with sensory experiences before it is able to be of some use to us.

Now we are so smart and impressed by the complexity of the brain, that we have great difficulty to believe that it has been different so many million years ago. The brain did not simply dropped from the sky, ready and fully operational.

It is the result of a long evolution and the designer of this brain is natural selection. And here the battle begins, when we enter the field of evolutionary psychology.

The application of evolutionary theory to the psychology and behavior of other animal species is generally uncontroversial. However, adaptationist approaches to human psychology are contentious, with critics questioning the scientific nature of evolutionary psychology, and with more minor debates within the field itself.

Evolutionary Psychology is grounded on the theory that fundamentally our psychology is based on biology, the composition of our brains. This is a form of reductionism, a research philosophy according to which the nature of complex things can be understood in terms of simpler or more fundamental things (i.e. reduced).

Now just read the following sentence: "The debates regarding the validity of evolutionary psychology have been regarded as occasionally quite vicious, with a strong ad hominem component."

I found this statement in an article in Wikipedia and it did not surprise me at all. When Darwin published his evolutionary theory, the world was literally in shock. Was there a connection between an ape and the human being??? Impossible!

The response was that cartoons showed Darwin as an ape. We are now entering a very sensitive area of the human discourse about ourselves. So let's keep our debates as objective and focused on the subject as possible, and let's avoid any ad hominem arguments.


The Discusion

[13:27] herman Bergson: Thank you...
[13:27] herman Bergson: The floor is yours ^_^
[13:28] itsme Frederix: applause
[13:28] APPLAUSE: A Hearty round of applause bursts from the crowd
[13:28] Jozen Ocello: claps
[13:28] herman Bergson: thank you...
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:28] : Qwark Allen joins the applause.
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: interesting
[13:28] herman Bergson: You surprise me..!
[13:28] itsme Frederix: some Quarcks are around
[13:29] herman Bergson: So nothing new in my words..you are all ok with it? :-)
[13:29] Beertje Beaumont: yes
[13:29] herman Bergson: Great ^^
[13:29] Quizzle Mode beams
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: a mighty strength is required for most foslk to resist ad hominem argumentation
[13:30] itsme Frederix: Well if you persist?
[13:30] Qwark Allen: i believe that was a similar concept as natural selection that made the brain as it is
[13:30] Qwark Allen: the sexual selection
[13:30] itsme Frederix: I was triggered by this sentence "13:22] herman Bergson: It can no longer be denied that the brain is an active player in our existence and not just a passive organ that first has to be filled with sensory experiences before it is able do be of some use to us."
[13:30] Qwark Allen: was the choice of thousands of years, of the female, that got us in this direction
[13:30] Qwark Allen: not the natural selection
[13:31] herman Bergson: Evolutionary psychology is fascinating.....especially the controversies…
[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: I would think with supernatural things it can only be ad hominem
[13:31] itsme Frederix: Which implies a separation between "us" and "brain" (and maybe body?)
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle...
[13:31] itsme Frederix: we utilize the brain or ... vice versa?
[13:32] herman Bergson: the problem with beliefs is that people are in love with their own beliefs...
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: that is my suspicion itsme
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: oh my yes
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: the former
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL yes indeed they are
[13:32] itsme Frederix: first Ari (and I think mine is a little besides the topic - et)
[13:32] herman Bergson: and when you critizise their beliefs you critisize their beloved ones......the ones they cuddle every day
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: Hood I believe is one of them
[13:33] herman Bergson: Hood is a horror to believers
[13:33] Quizzle Mode: We come very close here to asking the unanswerable question of how can we know anything outside our own thoughts? Does anything at all exist outside one's thoughts/perceptions.
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: bergie
[13:33] herman Bergson: That is an old one Quizzle...sollipsism...
[13:33] Qwark Allen: you got to read about darwin's nightmare with the peacock
[13:34] Quizzle Mode: yes, and one we really just have to live with ;)
[13:34] herman Bergson: But we leave the epistemological debate out here for the moment...and decline sollipsism as a tenable stand
[13:35] herman Bergson: just a pragmatic point of view..^_^
[13:35] herman Bergson: Wel I guess we can move on then....
[13:35] Quizzle Mode: Sollipsism is the stand, not the question Prof, and I totally agree that we must leave the question aside for practical purposes.
[13:36] herman Bergson: thank you Quizzle...
[13:36] itsme Frederix: So to summarize: supersense is natural and gives way for supernatural thoughts/behaviour - and its all because it made (and makes)sense to survive.
[13:36] herman Bergson: You could say that Itsme....
[13:37] itsme Frederix: Well that is my interpretation of your speech and Hood's book
[13:37] herman Bergson: If I look at my own personal superstition…it is just fun....and in a way emotionally not just fun....
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I just can not see any rationality much less empirical data to substantiate superstition except a feeling
[13:37] herman Bergson: yes Aristorle...
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: the human brain has a keen and evolved ability to see patterns and connections...a common element in "supernatural" perceptions
[13:38] itsme Frederix: Herman, more then fun because these things co-relate with some good things in life, and you made the correlation
[13:38] Beertje Beaumont: is supersense just for humans?
[13:38] herman Bergson: But dont fall into the pittfal of binary tinking...
[13:38] herman Bergson: that we are either rational or emotional...
[13:38] herman Bergson: we are one....
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: it seems,like religion, added to the list of unprovable notions
[13:39] herman Bergson: every thought has a rational and emotional dimension...
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: I have a 'feeling' we are not one
[13:39] herman Bergson: if you only reduce our behavior to a permanent struggle to survive...
[13:39] herman Bergson: we need it all..the rational and the irrational, it seems
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: well, yes....if we approach it as us being two selves
[13:40] itsme Frederix: Arie, the point is that supersense is NOT unprovable but that it is a theory based on observations and fitting in evolutionairy thoughts
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: it becomes much clearer
[13:40] herman Bergson: and there is no clear border between rational and irrational...
[13:40] herman Bergson: that is just an idea generated by our brain
[13:40] herman Bergson: a handy tool to understand the world around us
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: aa o
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:41] herman Bergson: ok..
[13:41] itsme Frederix: Herman, better to say a handy tool to .. handle and deal with the world
[13:42] itsme Frederix: .. and ourselves in that world
[13:42] herman Bergson: Next Tuesday we'll look into the specifics of the brain....how it works and what consequences this has
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:42] herman Bergson: Ok Itsem..agreed!
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:42] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your particiaption....
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: :) thank you Professor
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:43] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: was nice again Herman
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:43] Sartre Placebo: thx herman
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: thank you professor
[13:43] Jozen Ocello: thanks
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: interesting topic as usual ㋡
[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Professor
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: as always
[13:43] itsme Frederix: thx, and we will look into the specifics of the brain as we think it as and how we think it works. I guess the brain keeps that secret for us.!
[13:43] Quizzle Mode: Thank you Professor
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: hope I can make it on time tuesday i will be out of town
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: with the computer
[13:43] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: so if internet works i will be here
[13:43] herman Bergson: Great you made is so early Rodney!
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: yes nice!
[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman:-)
[13:44] Rodney Handrick: yes, why yes I did!
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon
[13:44] herman Bergson: Thank you all!
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡

256: The Ways of Liberalism 3

As we saw last time with Mandeville Liberalism was almost defined as the religion of greed. A popular belief in our time, but historically not the truth about liberalism, which finds its origin in the individualism, which already emerged in the Renaissance.

Traditional English liberalism has rested on a fairly simple concept of liberty—namely, that of freedom from the constraints of the state. In Thomas Hobbes’s memorable phrase, “The liberties of subjects depend on the silence of the law.”

English liberals have regarded the state as a necessary institution, ensuring order and law at home, defense against foreign powers, and security of possessions—the three principles John Locke summarized as “life, liberty and property.”

They have also maintained that the law can be used to extend the liberties of subjects insofar as the law is made to curb and limit the activities of the executive government.

The main element in liberal theories is the position of the state. With the rise of parlamentary democracy and all the legislative zeal of the representatives, the role of the state is still an important issue.

Even in such a sense that instead of a state influence as small as possible, the 20th century liberals in England saw the state as an instrument. The central aim of this new school was utilitarian— namely, freeing men from misery and ignorance.

The French development of liberalism oscillated between the Lockean ideas and those of Rousseau, who lays particular emphasis on freedom and equality. The French scene was devised in royalism and conservatism on the one side.

And socialism, anarchism on the other side. Liberalism was the theory of the middle, but it never was really adopted as a name of a political movement, and the theory was predominantly Lockean

Is is interesting to note that the emphasis on the freedom of the person and a minimal interference by the state is just a few steps away from anarchism. We should dig into that subject too.

Most telling is the view of Jean de Grandvilliers (1925), a french politician. According to Grandvilliers, the true meaning of liberalism is to be found in a policy of extending the liberty of the people; he maintained that the intervention of the state is not only a useful, but also a necessary, means to achieve that end.

The basic idea here is that the state belongs to the people, the enlargement of the power of the state is equally an enlargement of the power, and therefore the freedom, of its citizens. This is called statism.

In Germany, as elsewhere, we may discern not a single doctrine of liberalism but at least two main, conflicting schools, which again may be classified as the Lockean and the étatiste.

Here you see the basic conflict of liberal theory. On the one hand it wants to minimize the influence of the state in the life of the individual citizen, and on the other side the liberal sees the state as an instrument to elevate the masses.

In the US it isn't an honor to be called a "liberal", I guess. In The Liberal Imagination, Lionel Trilling (1975+) , an American literary critic, author, and teacher,defined liberalism as meaning, among other things, “a belief in planning and international co-operation, especially where Russia is in question.”

This definition may not have been wholly authorized by common usage, but there can be no doubt that the word liberal has come to be associated in the American public’s mind with étatiste and left-wing ideologies rather than with the Lockean notions of laissez faire and mistrust of organized power.

One might divide liberals into those who see freedom as something that belongs to the individual, to be defended against the encroachments of the state,

and those who see freedom as something which belongs to society and which the state, as the central instrument of social betterment, can be made to enlarge and improve.



The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson smiles
[13:21] herman Bergson: I knew you would react...Gemma
[13:21] herman Bergson: And Kiki..I hope this lecture clariefied a few things?
[13:21] Kiki Walpanheim: yes
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: not really
[13:21] herman Bergson: ok Gemma
[13:22] herman Bergson: shoot
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray smiles.
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: i am called a liberal because i am for more government
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: i am for caring for the poor who have no work
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: and for the ill
[13:22] Repose Lionheart: me too
[13:22] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and was very much in favor of the new health plan
[13:23] herman Bergson: Well ...
[13:23] Bruce Mowbray says Yayyy, Gemma.
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and want the government to do something about energy
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and greening
[13:23] herman Bergson: to put it all in proper perspective
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and it is most strange that during this oil disaster in the gulf
[13:24] herman Bergson: The basic idea of liberalism is the freedom of the individual...
[13:24] herman Bergson: problem is ..
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: that those who have been screaming about government interference
[13:24] herman Bergson: when the individual isnt gifted....or is ill..or unemployed…it is not much fun to be an individual
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: now what the government to take over the curing of the private company's problems
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim: but whichever strand of liberalism is, i think the central idea is not about simple redistribution of wealth
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: soooo true!
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: Gemma
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: right KIKI
[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: it never is
[13:25] herman Bergson: I think it is about redistribution of wealth
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: here in the usa the conservatives want low taxes and no government
[13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: but about elevating, encouraging the individuals to be in pursuit of happiness and thereby benefit the society as a whole
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: feeling strongly about that
[13:26] herman Bergson: But I mean it....
[13:26] herman Bergson: We live in such wealthy societies...if I speak for myself...
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: it would be nice if there could be a redistribution of the enormous differences yes
[13:26] herman Bergson: yes Gemma....
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: but maybe if those really really rich paid more taxes!!!!!
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: but NO
[13:27] herman Bergson: A world where people get paid bonusses of Millions of dollars....that is absurd
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: cannot get that through yes it is absurd
[13:27] herman Bergson: those millions belong somewhere else
[13:27] Zinzi Serevi: yes
[13:27] Zinzi's translator: yes
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: would do more good somewhere else
[13:27] herman Bergson: in the first place they are stolen from all customers
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:28] herman Bergson: did Marx say..Profit is theft?
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe what is in common is about encouraging creativity, innovation, which is the key to public benefits
[13:28] herman Bergson: In a way it is….excesive profits is theft...immoral
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: innovation in science and tech. for example
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes, agree, kiki
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: and i think liberalism is suitable for promoting creativity
[13:29] Zinzi Serevi: or education
[13:29] herman Bergson: yes....
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: yes, and productive of greed and systemic inefficiency
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: tho how to redistribute wealth is in dispute, it is not the key to solve all the problems...
[13:29] herman Bergson: But that is the ambiguity...
[13:30] herman Bergson: on the one hand a liberal wants as less involvement of the state as possible
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: oh well not so here
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: i dont believe in anarchism
[13:30] herman Bergson: On the other hand they want the state to educate the masses
[13:31] herman Bergson: only human being can think of anarchism Kiki...
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: oh....
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: liberals are accused of wanting more government
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: here
[13:31] herman Bergson: not an organism in this world thinks of it
[13:32] herman Bergson: So..quintessential is: what is the role of the state
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: here the most conservatives want NO government except military protection
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: the new tea party for ex that is their mantra
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes Gemma...that is the most extreme position for a liberal
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: what is
[13:33] herman Bergson: an army and police..that is al that is needed in a society
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: yes lol
[13:33] Abraxas Nagy: liberals meet anarchists
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: but that is the conservative view here
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: soooo....America is a liberal democracy, in which it's "left" and "right" are effectively the two historical positions of the liberalism of political philosophy...
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes I know
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: i see some very big gov. in some places have very poor police to protect its citizens
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: some call the liberals communist or at least socialist
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: so if the police do the job well, that is not a bad thing
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: How about different modes of government: federalism - federal, states, counties, townships, villages - each with differing governmental responsibilities?
[13:35] herman Bergson: Brudce,..
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: well , at least, having a big gov. regulating everything except protecting its citizens, it worse than the tea party option...
[13:35] herman Bergson: that doesnt affect the basic political view here..
[13:36] herman Bergson: you are for an government with big influence on society or you are for a government that only provides for an army and police/justice system
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: tho i wouldn't say i am in favour of the tea party option, not that sure....
[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: Some levels of govt. will take the Lockean side - others will take the other side, of the liberal ambiguity...
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: i think police/justice system is fundamental, yet some very central big gov. which regulate almost everything else could fail to do that
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well if we take the American perspective…any social involvement of the government...in health care etc is called communism..
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: i think some other regulation from the gov. other than just police/justice system is also necessary tho
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: lol
[13:37] Bruce Mowbray: in USA, almost all policing is handled by municipalities -- or perhaps states (highways, etc.) -- almost NO federal police, except in emergencies.
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well Adam Smith said...there are thing the individual citizen cant afford...so that should be a government task
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: take scientific research for example, tho the firms would fund some research, they are mainly market oriented only
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: you have the FBI tho
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: Every single county in America has a health department -- and NONE of them call that 'communist.'
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki...
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: and if the gov. could do that as well, then more fundamental , theriotical, non market oriented ones could be taken care of too
[13:39] herman Bergson: So the govenment should organize education and give room to pure scientific research
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: yet they are paramound
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: i think so
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: that is just one example...i think
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes absolutely
[13:40] herman Bergson: I agree Kiki
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: i think the problem with some very big gov. is not that they interfere too much, but that the inteference is not in the right places...
[13:41] herman Bergson: My idea is that our societies have become so complex that talking about liberalism or socialism..left ..right...is just a debate in the margine of reality
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, professor, i think so
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: agree
[13:42] herman Bergson: The system is run by economics....the stock markets....the speculators
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: American conservatives do want health care, libraries, schools, etc -- They just want them governed closer to home - not my the federal government (Wash. D.C.)
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: then problems come…environment, scientific research, monopoly....
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes Kiki
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: i think we can leave things to the market for what it can do, and regulate what cant be solved by simple --market
[13:43] herman Bergson: And all is coverted into profit or loss
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: Laissez faire.
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: but , if the police/justice system really is good, then i would be very much satisfied....even in the tea party option
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray gasps.
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: hmmmmm
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: me too bruce
[13:44] Zinzi Serevi: pfff
[13:44] Zinzi's translator: pfff
[13:44] herman Bergson: I understand Kiki....
[13:45] Zinzi Serevi: i dont
[13:45] Zinzi's translator: i dont
[13:45] herman Bergson: But there are things the indiviual cant afford..
[13:45] herman Bergson: so just add education, healthcare, pensions and we have a deal ^_^
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, and i think private health insurance has flaws
[13:46] herman Bergson: Just keep in mind.....
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: wel...maybe some regulation in the economics, the market....i dont know...
[13:46] herman Bergson: Locke lives in the 17th century..the world was so much simpeler then
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: guess so
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes ㋡
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: i was reading locke today.... to the 5th chapter....
[13:47] herman Bergson: Just take china now....
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: will continue after this lecture...
[13:47] herman Bergson: It is tied with hands and feet to western economics....stock markets etc
[13:48] herman Bergson: It is just playing along
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: which right now is very scary
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma..who is ruling the world?
[13:48] Rodney Handrick: yes it is Gemma
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: the market?
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: the Bilderbergers?
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: I'd say the officials at the world bank
[13:49] herman Bergson: At least not our Prime Minister..that is for sure.. ^_^
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:49] herman Bergson: lol Abraxas
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray smiles.
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: Isn't the world bank a private entity?
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: think so...
[13:49] herman Bergson: Well...this is the scary face of liberalim then, I guess
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: exactly and so is the US federal banks
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: private
[13:50] Rodney Handrick: Then it's the shareholders of these private corporations
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well...I think I should focus on egalitarianism next time..or communism...
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: looking forward to it
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: yep me to
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray says Yep!
[13:51] herman Bergson: we need a couterpoint..
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: i agree
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: many people in the US think we're heading in that direction
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: been thinking about these things all these years
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: me
[13:51] herman Bergson: Liberalism isnt the solution in my opinion
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: so have I Kiki
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: a lot actually
[13:52] herman Bergson: Well..maybe it is....the human being is the problem ^_^
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:52] Rodney Handrick: thank god I'm not human...lol
[13:52] Bruce Mowbray: hahaha
[13:52] herman Bergson: ok...this concludes the series on the religion of greed ^_^
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: hahaha
[13:53] herman Bergson: On to the next religion....
[13:53] herman Bergson: the one of sharing...
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: that sums it up nicely
[13:53] herman Bergson smiles
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:53] herman Bergson: thnx Abraxas
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: yw pro
[13:54] Bruce Mowbray says, Things are looking up.
[13:54] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your endurrance...
[13:54] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you professor and all
[13:54] herman Bergson: and contributions to the nice discussion
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:54] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:54] Bruce Mowbray: Thank YOU, professor.
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: it was inspiring again thanx herman
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: thanks
[13:54] herman Bergson: thnx Abraxas
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday i hope
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[13:55] ZANICIA Chau: yes truly inspiring, thanks Professor
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: see you all in 2 dayes
[13:55] herman Bergson: Hi CONNIE
[13:55] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye..:)
[13:55] Zinzi's translator: bye bye ..:)
[13:55] Sartre Placebo: thx and good night everyone
[13:55] CONNIE Eichel: great class, professor :)
[13:55] herman Bergson: Nice you came in too

252: on Poprerty...a real conclusion

One thing is clear. The only place where private property in the most strict sense of the word exists, is in Second Life. Whatever you posses there, you can do with it as you like, no matter what consequences it might have for others.

They won't sue you, they can't hurt you. They may protest, but you just need to shrug your shoulders and continue your Virtual Life as if nothing has happens. You just abandoned some land, for instance. So, whatever……

This means, that we need a different interpretation of the concept of private property and may conclude that the Roman law concept of the sovereign right of property – the right of the proprietor to do with his property as he pleases, "to use and abuse," can not be uphold.

Due to the industrial revolution the concept of property was a hot issue in the 19th century. Even to such and extend that French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his book What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government.(1840) formulated the famous statement: "La propriété, c'est le vol!" [Property is theft!]

But as Karl Marx already pointed out, the statement is self-refuting and unnecessarily confusing, writing that "since 'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property"

However, the idea wasn't new as Rousseau once wrote: ""The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.

From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows:

Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Discourse on Inequality ,1754)

To end this line of thinking with a joke: "Why do anarchists drink herbal tea? Because proper tea is theft"

The two major justifications given for original property are effort and scarcity. The effort principle goes back yo John Locke and his idea of mixing your labor with an object. For something to be economically scarce, it must necessarily have the exclusivity property - that use by one person excludes others from using it.


Any society with an interest in avoiding conflict needs a system of rules. And from this point of view David Hume (1763) concluded that there are property rights because of and to the extent that the existing law, supported by social customs, secure them.

This might lead to the conclusion that there is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality and laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings.

Thus property appears to be maybe the most sensitive political subject ever. And as history will show, it has given birth to quite opposite political systems based on how property is defined by law.

The collapse of socialist systems in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union since 1989 has been regarded as the natural justification of the existence of property and a justification of private property as well.

This may have lead to regard it as justified to privately accumulate as much property as possible as a personal goal, like the big banks have done since the 80s, which has resulted in the financial crisis we have to face these days.

The next crisis has already announced itself, when you look at countries like Greece where a small group has accumulated lots of property at the expense of a whole country and its economy, which even endangers the whole euro zone.

It may show that despite all political theories and laws we still have not found the right way to deal with property in such a sense that it is beneficial to all of society instead of beneficial for just a small group.

I guess we are still at the beginning of defining the concept of property in such a way that is will lead to a just global society, where it is the goal of political theory to achieve a just and fair distribution of property, or in other words a just access to the resources of this earth for everyone.


The Discussion

[13:25] herman Bergson: So much on property..
[13:25] CONNIE Eichel: ty :)
[13:25] Daruma Boa: *•.¸('*•.¸ ♥ ¸.•*´)¸
[13:25] Daruma Boa: .•*♥¨`•APPLAUSE!!!°•´¨` ♥.
[13:25] Daruma Boa: ¸.•*(¸.•*´ ♥ `*•.¸)`*•.¸
[13:25] Daruma Boa: Hey!
[13:25] herman Bergson: thank you Daruma
[13:25] oola Neruda: what about griefers... how they are using their property
[13:26] herman Bergson: Nothing special about them...
[13:26] Zinzi Serevi: what property?
[13:26] Zinzi's translator: what property?
[13:26] herman Bergson: IN RL terms they would be called criminals and put behind bars
[13:26] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: I agree that we still just at the beginning of defining property in a way that will produce a just society
[13:27] herman Bergson: Here the get a death sentence....BANNED for ever
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: In nature, "property" seems, in some species, equal to "territory."
[13:27] herman Bergson: YeS Bruce..
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: interesting
[13:28] Bruce Mowbray: Does that correlate to "use of resources"?
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: so...a natural analog for human notions of property
[13:28] herman Bergson: The prey captured is defended against others too..a property effect
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce,..but in nature no lion kills 10 zebras...just one to have food
[13:29] Bruce Mowbray: Excellent point.
[13:29] herman Bergson: Humans would even kill 100 zebras..to have dead zebras
[13:29] Zinzi Serevi: a fox kills 10 chickens and eats one
[13:29] Zinzi's translator: a fox kills 10 chickens and one eats
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: or millions of buffalo
[13:29] Bruce Mowbray: domesticated chickens... than is.
[13:29] herman Bergson: true Zinzi...
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Repose
[13:30] herman Bergson: But Zoinzi I think there is a reasonable explanation for that behavior...
[13:30] Bruce Mowbray: What would a "just" use of resources entail, then?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Bruce there you hit the central nerve...
[13:31] herman Bergson: if you assume that we as organisms on this earth just are here...where does the property idea come from?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Nobody owns anything or everybody owns everything...
[13:32] herman Bergson: so just means that we all have to share the resources to live a comfortable live
[13:32] Bruce Mowbray: I think it has to do with being "close" to ourselves physically.
[13:32] herman Bergson: I think it has to do with the question...why should a human being get a bonus of 10 million dollars for his work?
[13:33] Bruce Mowbray: What is the "just" use of resources meant that no one could "own" more than whatever was within twenty feet of himself?
[13:33] herman Bergson: Could that money not be spent in a more social way?
[13:33] Zinzi Serevi: yes i agree
[13:33] Zinzi's translator: yes i agree
[13:33] ZANICIA Chau: Excuse me proff...an emergency to deal with
[13:33] herman Bergson: Well Bruce that was in 1763 John Locke's idea too
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: Oh --- so MONEY is property now?
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: problem with capitalism is that it has no moral core
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: and life is lived on a moral axis
[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Repose...just the idea of property..
[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Bruce...money is property
[13:34] oola Neruda: the idea of communal "property" is not always working... in malawi, feb. is "starvation month"... when it comes... everyone who has food is expected to share
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: capitalism and its notio0ns of property rights are not finally true to what we are
[13:35] Bruce Mowbray: It seems to me that the "just" use of resources would have to involve respect for the land, etc. from which those resources came and to which they will return.
[13:35] oola Neruda: there is no incentive to save food ahead because when the time comes you have to share it... so you eat it while you can
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes oola...human beings are so primitive and selfish by nature it seems
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:36] herman Bergson: We still havent learnt to share
[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: We share "common property" all the time.
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:36] herman Bergson: This earth produces enough food for all inhabitants...yet we see starvation...while nobody owns this earth
[13:37] herman Bergson: We still are a primitive species..despite of all philosophy and science
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: just what i was thinking just now ㋡
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: we have a "noble obligation" to share....?
[13:38] Zinzi Serevi: just survival of the fittest
[13:38] Zinzi's translator: just survival of the fittest
[13:38] herman Bergson: Dont despare...we made progress through the centuries
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes, we do
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: I agree with Repose on that.
[13:38] herman Bergson: Not anymore Zinzi...
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: and I agree with Bruce ㋡
[13:38] herman Bergson: now it is survival of the richest ^_^
[13:38] oola Neruda: perhaps this is the root of things like "love thy neighbor as thyself" etc
[13:39] Daruma Boa: true zinzi
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: do unto others are you would have them. . .
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: as
[13:39] Daruma Boa: yesherman sadly true
[13:39] oola Neruda: :-)
[13:40] Zinzi Serevi: greed
[13:40] Zinzi's translator: Greed
[13:40] herman Bergson: We are taliking about 2000 years of philosophy
[13:40] herman Bergson: Homo sapiens for 30.000 years..
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Is one solution to expland our concept of "common" property and to reduce our concept of "private" property?
[13:40] herman Bergson: the universe for billions of years....
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: expand
[13:40] herman Bergson: we are just a flash of light..
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: a "flash of light" understanding does not feed hungry or house homeless...
[13:41] herman Bergson: we should come back to earth in 2000 years and see if the homo sapiens is stal around
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: don't hold your breath
[13:41] oola Neruda: nods
[13:42] herman Bergson: No Bruce..what I mean to say is that we makeprogress...but it is in a very slow pace
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: recent attempts to extend moral insights into modern economic organization (communism, socialism) have failed or underperformed
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: I undersand.
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: but that doesn't mean it can't be done
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: we learn from our mistakes
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: Each of us ALREADY KNWOS what needs to be done.
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: regroup and go forward
[13:42] herman Bergson: YEs Repose..the big banks are abck to business as usual...
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: knows.
[13:42] herman Bergson: as if nothing has happened...
[13:43] herman Bergson: utter arrogance and th eknowledge that governments will keep them upright
[13:43] Bruce Mowbray: we know what needs to be done.
[13:43] oola Neruda: some wheels...when put in motion... are not that easily undone... like what we do to the earth
[13:43] oola Neruda: like that oil spill for example... there are others
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, oola, seems like the problems are bigger at each turn of the wheel
[13:44] herman Bergson: ye sBruce ..we all know, but only a few do act upon it
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: yep.
[13:44] oola Neruda: money = property
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: credit = property??
[13:44] oola Neruda: wry smiles
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well..I made my point today on property...
[13:45] oola Neruda: oil spills and pollution etc... are like girefers
[13:45] herman Bergson: And I am thinking about my next step for the next lecture..
[13:45] oola Neruda: bankers are too
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: ohhh...good analogy that
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:46] Daruma Boa: i agree
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: oh, what's that, Prof?
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well...I am thinking..an other political philosopher or the idea that all men are equal...
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: and women....
[13:47] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Bruce
[13:47] Zinzi's translator: thanks Bruce
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:47] oola Neruda: yay bruce
[13:47] Josiane Llewellyn: :)
[13:47] herman Bergson: it is about sharing the resources of this earth...and we are all equally entitled to enjoy the use of these resoruces
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: yes, definitely not part of the discussion where i live ㋡
[13:48] Zinzi Serevi: i look forward to it
[13:48] Zinzi's translator: i look forward to it
[13:48] herman Bergson: in dutch ?men? is translated as meaning ?paople? Bruce.. ^_^
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: generic sexuality.... I like it!
[13:48] oola Neruda: chinese uses the same word for men and women
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: generic gender....
[13:49] herman Bergson: Then I love chinese oola ^_^
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: ewww
[13:49] oola Neruda: :-)
[13:49] Zinzi Serevi: lol
[13:49] Zinzi's translator: lol
[13:49] herman Bergson: Welll...at least their cuisine.. ㋡
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: Is gender not also a form of "property"?
[13:50] herman Bergson: yes Bruce..already John Locke said that we at least own our body..so also our gender defining parts
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: So, I "own" my gender -- not just "be" it.
[13:50] Daruma Boa: haha
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:51] herman Bergson: It IS your property Bruce...!
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: to be is to own
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: You're damn right it is!
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: that's pretty metaphorical
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: hand off!
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: hands
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: Mine!
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well...may I thank you all for your participation and good discussion
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: THANK you, Professor.
[13:51] herman Bergson: Class dismissed!
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: thank you professor
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: thanks to you prof
[13:51] Zinzi's translator: thanks to you Prof
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:52] oola Neruda: nice, prof... :-)
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: as always i got food for thought again
[13:52] Daruma Boa: thank u
[13:52] herman Bergson: you are digesting my private property then Abraxas...my ideas
[13:52] Daruma Boa: so the next class is thursday?
[13:53] herman Bergson: yes Daruma
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: I am i guess sa