Violence, Killing & Murder - instinct? (Nature or Nurture?)

Prince James wrote:
Kaiduorkhon:

"The answers to your timely questions are in (especially the introductory portions of) http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie. The first edition of my book was consigned to and sold out - on consignment - in 41 California bookstores, in 1970. The same year it was included in the Portola Institute's WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE and sold out internationally through the mail (There are only 20,000 copies of it in the world and all nine editions are sold out. On the other hand, short of a few missing illustrations, the condensed version of the 627 page 1979 copyrighted - largest edition of the - book, is available right now at the above URL)."

Thank you for the providing of such information.

"Perhaps you could let me know what you think of the posted condensed edition (its a rough draft work in progress, but it works).
I've also got a sold out work in progress at http://forums.delphiforums.com/subedai (as you may have heard?) "

Thus far I must report a great deal of confusion in regards to the book presented under "Einstein". Often it seems the parts are only tenuously connected and it seems a bit out of place. For instance, it just seems like one or two posts of yours in one section, then nothing else. Might it not be possible that you could simply create a *.doc or *.txt (which would be very easy to put up on any website) of your works? This way it would be one, consistant bit of text, that one might even print with relatively little difficulty.

On the other hand, your other book is a bit easier to read, although still a bit jumbled compared to what would be preferable. My suggestions for the first book stand, in essence.

Also, I have found two errors in it:

"The Original Wild Horse, originating in North America, evolved from Eohippus - 'the Dawn Horse’, - of about 50,000,000 years ago; then evolved to the Tarpan and Barb - husbandried in North Africa"

This first error is a compound error.
For one, the animal species is properly called hyracotherium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium) with the name you reference it as being but alternative name given to it by a co-finder which is not used as the true name of the animal any more.'

Secondly, the animal was also evolving in Europe and Asia, not just North America. It would do well to note that the continents at that tiem looked like this: http://www.scotese.com/newpage9.htm

Thirdly, it is improper to say that this creature evolved directly into the horse, without references to the myriad evolutionary forms before it.
___________________________________

Dear Sir James:

The horse evolved everywhere it went, but it originated in North America.

I know of know stringent edict written by myself that proclaims that the modern equine evolved directly to the horse from the evolutionary stage of the eohippus, or tarpan, or barb. In fact, due to the massive skeletal remains that endured erosive elements better than most paleontological specimens, the horse - and its predecessors - has taught us much about the evolution of mammals in general.

'The first error is a compound error.
For one, the animal species is properly called hyracotherium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium) with the name you reference it as being but alternative name given to it by a co-finder which is not used as the true name of the animal any more.' - Please elaborate Sir James, I'm not sure I understand what you may mean on this note.
___________________________________

I am aware that anthropology and other related sciences (ethnology, ethology) are in transition right now, about 'ritual warfare' and what looks like it had a much higher mortality rate than previously thought. Your notes on that note are well taken and I myself am doing further research on these relatively new findings, which are still coming in as you may know, from several differerent sources.
I intend to revise the work accordingly and can only be grateful for your information, and, your interest(s). Thank you for reading (at least some of) my work.
I am looking forward to what you may think of the field interpretation of quantum mechanics in Pt. VII of http://forums.delphiforum.com/EinsteinGroupie.
Please stay in touch.
 
Kaiduorkhon:

"The horse evolved everywhere it went, but it originated in North America."

Do you have any specific reference that claims that the genesis of the creature was in America? For in the article I presented to you, no such claim is made, and in fact, it states explicitly that it was to be found in North America and Eurasia at the time.

"I know of know stringent edict written by myself that proclaims that the modern equine evolved directly to the horse from the evolutionary stage of the eohippus, or tarpan, or barb."

You do not state this flat out, no, but it is implied in not noting that the horse has not -directly- evolved from this creature. It is rather like skipping all mentioning of the Homo habilus and erectus from the mentions of human evolution.

"For one, the animal species is properly called hyracotherium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium) with the name you reference it as being but alternative name given to it by a co-finder which is not used as the true name of the animal any more.' - Please elaborate Sir James, I'm not sure I understand what you may mean on this note."

According to the article I referenced:

"The first fossils of this animal were found in England by the paleontologist Richard Owen in 1841, who suspected that it was a primate due to its teeth. He did not have a full specimen and called it "Hyrax-like beast". In 1876, Othniel C. Marsh found a full specimen in America, which he named Eohippus ("dawn horse"). When it became clear that the two finds were the same species, and the first published name (Hyracotherium) has priority as the official name and Eohippus is considered a synonym."

That is to say, you ought to call the animal "hydracotherium" rather than "eohippus", as the latter is simply a synonym and not the official name, nor to be found in the species designation, which is Palaeotheriidae
hyracotherium.

"I am aware that anthropology and other related sciences (ethnology, ethology) are in transition right now, about 'ritual warfare' and what looks like it had a much higher mortality rate than previously thought. Your notes on that note are well taken and I myself am doing further research on these relatively new findings, which are still coming in as you may know, from several differerent sources.
I intend to revise the work accordingly and can only be grateful for your information, and, your interest(s). Thank you for reading (at least some of) my work."

I am grateful that you have considered my suggestions in regards to this and await a time when you will have made all the revisions you have thought to be necessary. But yes, currently our understandings of band-level warfare are a bit lacking and it is rather interesting how much of a revision is currently being made.

"I am looking forward to what you may think of the field interpretation of quantum mechanics in Pt. VII of http://forums.delphiforum.com/EinsteinGroupie."

I shall take a gander later and give you my thoughts.
 
Depends on how you define instinct I suppose. Ultimately I'd say that it is instinct to guarantee survival, which can manifest as seeking power in a percentage of the populous.

Without consequences / social convention. murder and killing can seem like the best way to establish power.

It is natural to live.

One is nurtured via circumstance. Given the varied circumstances of the entire species - and the ability to be abstractly molded by evolving circumstance, murder and killing must often seem to inviduals as quite desirable for as many different reasons as there are circumstances.

Perhaps they are nuerochemically prone to anger (too much of some chemical).

Perhaps mommy didn't love them, and continually hurt them - leaving a chasmic void in their mentality that they find is satiated by inflicting pain and death on others.

Blah, blah blah blah.

Nature vs. nurture is as follows:

It is natural for humans to adapt to their circumstances as bounded by the contraints of their capacity (mental, physical, etc.). All of which is really just part of their circumstance.

Something like that.

I think ego itself (a sense of self) is basically just the survival instinct as manifested per the above, give the capacity to abstract experience over time, which is just adaptation I guess, but on an "imaginary" level, that of internalization, which can result in behaviors to suit one's percieved circumstance...

of course sometimes all that leads to murder, rape, death, all kinds of badness as seeming like the most valueable of potential forthcoming actions.
 
Dear Wesmorris:
In my opine - excellent overview.
Thank you for your response, I'll quote you elsewhere, by your leave, in a compilation of good, bad and oogly responses.
Please stay in touch. Maybe you could scan the works in progress at http://forums.delphiforums.com/subedai and http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie and tell me what you think of them. I'll accredit you of course with most anything you contribute.

Am particularly curious to know what you think of the field theory interpretation of quantum mechanics in Pt. VII at EinsteinGroupie.

Subedai is about violence and warfare and some feedback from you on that would be an honor to receive. Constructive criticism, corrections or contributions are welcome.

Best regards to You and Yours.
 
"The fastest growing violent crime in the U.S.A. is the physical abuse of women and children - including rape - by adult men."

I dispute this, history shows that domestic violence against women and children has always been the way. The only reason it appears as a fast growing crime, is because it was NOT recoignised as a crime until last couple of decades. 'Domestic' violence was not dealt with by the police and courts when my mother was a victim of it that's for sure.

Thus any impression of this being on the increase is merely the result of increased 'awareness' assisted by the fact it is now recognised as an offence.
Women don't hide their 'dirty little secret' any more they talk about it and can seek protection.

But is it on increase............no.

Men have been assaulting women since beginning of time just as the strong have been overpowering the weak. Rather men are becoming more enlightened.

It's not a mystery really is it? It's nature largely, the nurture part is exercising restraint.
 
Note:

One reason (not all of course) for men hitting women

Men as dictated to by their testosterone levels are more likely to respond aggressively to a confrontation, thus when in dialogue with another male, they exercise restraint as they know instinctively that another male may react violently if verbally provoked. Being called a thief, a liar etc.

Females however in today’s culture have been raised with the belief they are equal to men and that it is wrong for men to hit them, thus they do not anticipate violence when they elect to say certain provocative things. They did not grow up with the instinctual understanding that males share with other males re what is permissible and what is not in dialogue that does not wish to end in violence.

So what you have is a situation where men to men generally 'withhold' certain forms of verbal confrontation unless they are prepared for/or inciting a fight. Whereas a woman will engage a man on the assumption she can say whatever and there will be no consequence. She engages him on a level only a powerfully dominant male would dare to do!

And so as much as I HATE to say it and I do, we women should pay the same heed (no more no less) than do men when in dialogue with other men and avoid the 'fight inducing' talk.
 
Prince_James said:
Kaiduorkhon:

"The horse evolved everywhere it went, but it originated in North America."

Do you have any specific reference that claims that the genesis of the creature was in America? For in the article I presented to you, no such claim is made, and in fact, it states explicitly that it was to be found in North America and Eurasia at the time.

"I know of know stringent edict written by myself that proclaims that the modern equine evolved directly to the horse from the evolutionary stage of the eohippus, or tarpan, or barb."

You do not state this flat out, no, but it is implied in not noting that the horse has not -directly- evolved from this creature. It is rather like skipping all mentioning of the Homo habilus and erectus from the mentions of human evolution.

"For one, the animal species is properly called hyracotherium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium) with the name you reference it as being but alternative name given to it by a co-finder which is not used as the true name of the animal any more.' - Please elaborate Sir James, I'm not sure I understand what you may mean on this note."

According to the article I referenced:

"The first fossils of this animal were found in England by the paleontologist Richard Owen in 1841, who suspected that it was a primate due to its teeth. He did not have a full specimen and called it "Hyrax-like beast". In 1876, Othniel C. Marsh found a full specimen in America, which he named Eohippus ("dawn horse"). When it became clear that the two finds were the same species, and the first published name (Hyracotherium) has priority as the official name and Eohippus is considered a synonym."

That is to say, you ought to call the animal "hydracotherium" rather than "eohippus", as the latter is simply a synonym and not the official name, nor to be found in the species designation, which is Palaeotheriidae
hyracotherium.

"I am aware that anthropology and other related sciences (ethnology, ethology) are in transition right now, about 'ritual warfare' and what looks like it had a much higher mortality rate than previously thought. Your notes on that note are well taken and I myself am doing further research on these relatively new findings, which are still coming in as you may know, from several differerent sources.
I intend to revise the work accordingly and can only be grateful for your information, and, your interest(s). Thank you for reading (at least some of) my work."

I am grateful that you have considered my suggestions in regards to this and await a time when you will have made all the revisions you have thought to be necessary. But yes, currently our understandings of band-level warfare are a bit lacking and it is rather interesting how much of a revision is currently being made.

"I am looking forward to what you may think of the field interpretation of quantum mechanics in Pt. VII of http://forums.delphiforum.com/EinsteinGroupie."

I shall take a gander later and give you my thoughts.
Click to expand...
_______________________

Dear Prince James:
I first encountered the information that the 'Equus' (granted that there are many other horse creatures after and especially before 'Equus') in H.G. Well's OUTLINE OF HISTORY.
Most recently I googled 'origin of the horse' and selected 'Horse Evolution' by Kathleen Hunt. Here's what gave me the impression (which I have encountered elsewhere) that 'Equus' (per se) originated in North America:

"During the first major glaciations of the late Pliocene (2.6 Ma), certain Equus species crossed to the Old World. Some entered Africa and diversified into the modern zebras. Others spread across Asia, the Mideast, & N. Africa as desert-adapted onagers and asses. Still others spread across Asia, the Mideast, and Europe as the true horse, E. caballus. Other Equus species spread into South America. The Equus genus was perhaps the most successful perissodactyl genus that ever lived -- even before domestication by humans."
Your points about horse having a wide and diverse evolutionary history are well spoken for in my more recent studies, on the other hand, at the point of becoming 'Equus', although Well's book may be considered out dated, his information corroborated with that of Kathleen Hunt ('Horse Evolution' - google).

As you probably know, the horse went extinct on the North American continent about 15,000 years ago, along with the giant sloth and saber toothed tiger along with a number of other critters, due to what is fairly well agreed as having been a volcanic eruption which obscured the sun and effected the infrastructural grass that animals so depend on. Horses did not re enter the 'New World' until Columbus and other explorers after him, reintroduced the horse to 'the New World'. There are common misunderstandings based on the history of Columbus having brought horses to North & South America, that it must not have originated on the North American Continent.
Recent findings in the Ukraine find forensic evidence of domesticated horses, about 10,000 years ago.

Thanks for the 'heads up' on the most recently adopted name for Equus (Hydracerthium?) and several other impressive points you've made.
RSVP
kraziequus@yahoo.com
 
Kaiduorkhon:

In regards to horse evolution:

I must concede my point! You are indeed correct. The discrepancies in our text resulted from the fact that many sources failed to mention that the Eurasian horses died off, leaving only the North American horses to migrate to the rest of the world.

From http://www.bbhc.org/unbrokenSpirit/evolution_1.cfm :

"The diminutive dawn horse lived in North America and Europe at the same time. This was when the British Isles and the North American continent were attached -- part of a supercontinent called "Laurasia," which included North America, Greenland, and Europe north of the Alps and as far east as the Himalayas. Hyracotherium appeared in Laurasia at the beginning of the Eocene Epoch (lasting 16 million years), during which all major orders of modern mammals appeared. Several species of Hyracotherium developed, varying in size from about 10 to 20 inches tall. Then, this earliest horse, for some unknown reason, became extinct during the Oligocene Epoch, in Europe, which, by this time, had separated from the North American continent.5 Therefore, the evolutionary process for the horse in Europe stopped at the alpha-stage, while continuing on in the New World, through a complex branching process of trial and error, success and extinction."

"As you probably know, the horse went extinct on the North American continent about 15,000 years ago, along with the giant sloth and saber toothed tiger along with a number of other critters, due to what is fairly well agreed as having been a volcanic eruption which obscured the sun and effected the infrastructural grass that animals so depend on."

Do you have any resources for the volcanic eruptionbeing the cause of the extinction? For I had thought it was still undetermined in regards to the cause of the climate shift?

Now, let me discuss your Einstein-related things.

In the part you had me read, you spoke of gravity as an electromagnetic phenomena. Might you provide evidence of this fact? For instance, do you cover this in a prior chapter? Because last I checked, the electromagnetic and gravitic forces are utterly different in nature. For one, gravity stems from mass, whereas the electromagnetic force is meditated by photon exchange (although apparently you are of the opinion that these do not exist).

Similarly, the thesis of this is that a General Field Theory is superior to a Quantum Theory for a foundation of scientific knowledge? For whereas I am willing to agree with you that space in the absence of something is an impossible, it does not seem as if you have much support whatsoever amongst scientists in declaring that Quantum Mechanics is not the proper route, although the incapacity for QM to be in accord with the much more documented General and Special Relativity (specifically owing to the lack of any viable form of Quantum Gravity amongst various other important things) might be its biggest flaw and is admitted by scientists with hopes of future change.
 
Prince James:
I do not at all discount QM. On the other hand Einstein's Field Theories and QM are considered to be antithetical; whereas, as I try to point out in Pt VII of http://forums.delphiforums.cc/EinsteinGroupie that Quantum Mechanics is generated by field phenomena - please take note of the logarithmic spiral in the golden rectangle, containing a series of 90o pie slices equating with physical dimensions (a minimum of four).

Off hand I cannot provide you with the sources of information that confirm the volcanic explosion of about 10 to 15 thousand years ago, resulting in the local extinction of the horse. It is however, generally accepted as a well established fact in 'the scientific community' (non sequitur that it is).
 
Kaiduorkhon:

"I do not at all discount QM. On the other hand Einstein's Field Theories and QM are considered to be antithetical; whereas, as I try to point out in Pt VII of http://forums.delphiforums.cc/EinsteinGroupie that Quantum Mechanics is generated by field phenomena - please take note of the logarithmic spiral in the golden rectangle, containing a series of 90o pie slices equating with physical dimensions (a minimum of four)."

I shall continue to read more of it and give you my comments following it all.

"Off hand I cannot provide you with the sources of information that confirm the volcanic explosion of about 10 to 15 thousand years ago, resulting in the local extinction of the horse. It is however, generally accepted as a well established fact in 'the scientific community' (non sequitur that it is). "

Well the problem with this acceptance is the fact that climate change is caused by numerous things, not all of which can be reduced to volcanos. But yes, it does tend to be considered one of the most capable-of-producing such scenarios.
 
Ophiolite said:
I'd just like to say that I thought Genji's edited post was especially apt.
Click to expand...

Well. Genji edited the last one out, as for his posts preceding it, we've - you and I have - found something we can agree on.

He - and many others who remind me that the 4th dimension is time - reveals the fact that he hasn't read the work he's criticizing, since 'gravity is the 4th dimension', as a title and a proclamation, categorically includes time; to the full comprehension of jr. high school students; for the past 40 + years. He, like you, does clarify that it's his objective to disagree with me, he simply avoids any reasonable argument while briefly or extensively stringing out dissenting adjectives.
 
The killer instinct is definately an instinct. It's simple. Lack of morality, moral insanity, and aggressive tendencies. This combination combines and if all the genes and stimulus are correct the killer instinct can kick in.

Now, all of us can kill if scared. However a psychopath or sociopath, with an aggressive temper, is likely to kill with the remorseless killer instinct you speak of.
 
Theoryofrelativity

And so as much as I HATE to say it and I do, we women should pay the same heed (no more no less) than do men when in dialogue with other men and avoid the 'fight inducing' talk.
Click to expand...

Brilliant, just Brilliant, this is one of the smartest answers I have ever seen on the problem of violence between men and women, I am not for violence against women, but you have stated something that may be of primordial significance, the communication, the difference in the communication perception of what is acceptable in conversation between the sexes, can you expound any further on this Idea?
 
Buffalo Roam said:
Theoryofrelativity



Brilliant, just Brilliant, this is one of the smartest answers I have ever seen on the problem of violence between men and women, I am not for violence against women, but you have stated something that may be of primordial significance, the communication, the difference in the communication perception of what is acceptable in conversation between the sexes, can you expound any further on this Idea?
Click to expand...


I probably could but I think all men (not necc all women...took me 30+yrs to figure it out!) should identify with the reasonning.

Meanwhile it is also important to note, ONLY a woman could make this point! The situation is such that should a man have said this, the females and males would have launched an air attack, and it would perhaps very wrongly have been interpretted as the 'woman asks for it' when it really is JUST a lack of understanding about how males converse and the boundaries that exist, as these boundaries DO NOT exist between females.

In the days of old before female equality, women WERE though, educated by their mothers to speak a certain way to men. This was wrongly understood at the time and since as being 'subserviant' to men. Thus women dropped this behaviour and exchanged the humbled speech for what they thought was 'equal' speach when in fact it was 'confrointational' and not akin to anything men are/were accustomed to from men or women before.

Men have adjusted well to this, very well and many men DO NOT rise to the provactive and confrontational speak, but there are those that do, or in extremely stressful situations do. These men are not the same as those men that will seek to control a woman at every level of her life and regardless of her behaviour will resort to violence to maintain the tight control. Much the same as farmer uses a dog to control his sheep, a man will use his fists to control a woman.

A distinction is thus made.
 
Kaiduorkhon said:
Prince James:
I do not at all discount QM. On the other hand Einstein's Field Theories and QM are considered to be antithetical; whereas, as I try to point out in Pt VII of http://forums.delphiforums.cc/EinsteinGroupie that Quantum Mechanics is generated by field phenomena - please take note of the logarithmic spiral in the golden rectangle, containing a series of 90o pie slices equating with physical dimensions (a minimum of four).

Off hand I cannot provide you with the sources of information that confirm the volcanic explosion of about 10 to 15 thousand years ago, resulting in the local extinction of the horse. It is however, generally accepted as a well established fact in 'the scientific community' (non sequitur that it is).
Click to expand...

Dear Prince James (and any other even mildly concerned party?):
Correction on the '900 pie slices' - I was trying to say 90 degree (90o - right angle segements) it's (at least) eleven (- and apparently, potentially an infinite number of same -refer the extrapolating spiral in the golden rectangle, sometimes known as the golden spiral - 'Phi').

Regarding the violence (etceteras?) issue, extant (more or less, and moving right along?):

I can't produce any hard evidence on this, presently,but, anyway, I have repeately read from reliable sources as well as occasionally witnessed that, about 80% of the time a man seriously and physically strikes a woman, he will continue to do so, even after swearing he won't, again, until she leaves him or he is forced to leave her (too often resulting in the perishment of that woman).

Another relevancy - in another forum not too long ago I stated that the physical abuse of women and children was the fastest growing violent crime in the United States (Oph just straightened me out on the violence against children portion of this statement - I presume its fairly the same in the UK as it is the US <and ToR shed some more light on the same issue>, whereas, otherwise, I'm sticking to my initial statement about violence against females by males - I submit that international violence will not be held in reasonable check until the male female issue of violence is understood and responded to accordingly, by the general - international - public)...
A well intended reply (on another forum) contended that (the title of this thread), with the factual statement that the male rape of men by men in (hard core) prison was the fastest growing violent crime.

I wrote back that I agreed with him, while reminding him that prison is a condensed microcosm of the society it occurs in and that since, as a rule, there's no women or children to abuse in prison, the male prisoners 'assault' each other,
(Incidentally, male rape statistics would be much higher, except, in some states the rape of one man by another is not called rape, but rather 'assault'. A poignant essay is written by yours truly on that very fact - i.e., in many states 'only women can be raped'... Same kind of 'assault', but it changes from rape to 'assault' when it's done to a man by a man. A convuluted distillation of at least a portion of what's at issue in this thread, no?).
Moreover, the incidents of women in prison sexually assaulting other women in prison is much (much) lower than such incidents among men in a men's prison. No I can't momentarily prove that either, but anyone may hold contention on that and I do predict they'll lose this (potential) argument on that subject (I recently moved and don't have a bunch of resource stuff readily at hand at this time).

Thank you (Dear Hearts?) for reading this missive.
(How we do carry on?)
((I'd lose my mind, if I could remember where it was?))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top