normal
forum

Home Topics General Discussion What about passion and compassion?

  • Author
    Posts
    • Reply

      Michael
      Participant

      Have anyone read the book “The Passionate Ape” by Craig Hagstrom, and his logic about the origins of human passions and compassions, and if so how can his reasonings be incorporated or understood within the framework of the WTM’s logic?

      https://www.amazon.com/Passionate-Ape-Craig-Hagstrom/dp/0970262655

    • Reply

      Matt
      Participant

      I am aware of its premise – that obsessive love evolved in an aquatic environment in order to maximize mating opportunities, and that this ability to obsess drove all sorts of subsequent mental developments. I don’t think it can be understood within Griffith’s framework which is that the human condition arose from our intellect’s insecurity in the face of our instinct’s criticism of its search for knowledge. Passion or lust is understood as a psychological perversion of the reproductive impulse, a reaction to innocence; while love is understood as a psychological state of longing for a human condition free existence; and our compassion is a reflection of our original all-loving instincts, developed through the love-indoctrination process. When I encounter a new author these days, the first thing I do is ask myself whether they recognize that the human condition is a psychological state, affecting everything we do. If there is an acknowledgment that it is a psychological issue, then I know that what follows might contain a modicum of truth. Unfortunately, such authors are beyond rare. Koestler is one maybe. Berdyaev who Griffith cites appears to be another, but I have not read him.

    • Reply

      Michael
      Participant

      I’m reading Craig’s book at the moment, and one thing he say’s about love (on p. 116) is that it, quote:”remains curiously hard to identify”, unquote… given that Jeremy G. has identified love as an indoctrination of the primate child by it’s own mother starting some 10-12 MYA, it is IMO possible to incorporate Graig Hagstrom’s reasonings within Jeremy Griffith’s framework since Graig then goes on to say in his book that, quote:”Love’s first parent was fear,” —- “love’s second parent was obsession, focusing our attention to a point” unquote.

      This kind of reasoning can IMO be understood as another way of saying that the adrenalinerush, pounding heart and stomach impact which still often is associated with both love and “it’s first parent”, fear, originated in the
      loveindoctrinated young male’s confused feelings between his inherited maternal selfpreserving instincts and his childish legitimate fear of “infanticide among non-human primates”…

      Love’s “second parent” as Craig describes it, obsession, can then be understood as the socially emerging intellect, which grew more and more complex as a result of this continuing “focused attention to a point”…

      The specifically ‘Human condition’ which Jeremy Griffith speaks about didn’t emerge until 2 MYA, which leaves a whole 8-10 million years of female-role dominated or matriarchal primate society in which the passion and other things Craig Hagstrom is talking about could have evolved… the psychological perversion of the ‘reproductive impulse’ that you mention for example, didn’t take place according to the WTM until after 2 MYA, see:
      https://www.humancondition.com/asid-bringing-peace-to-the-war-between-the-sexes/?scroll_to=passion%20lust&scroll_num=1
      …so it seems to me more and more plausible the more I contemplate the subject that the World Transformation Movement has potential to incorporate a whole lot of different viewpoints on human development into one logical sequence of events, once the different subjects are compared against a timeline stretching as far back from the present as 10-12 million years… if for example our ‘compassion is a reflection of our original all-loving instincts’, which according to the WTM-logic originated and grew alongside the loveindoctrination-process starting some 10-12 MYA, then it follows that the external compassion’s internal counterpart passion also most likely is a ‘reflection of our all-loving instincts’, which I so far see no objections to as to why it could not have evolved the way that Craig Hagstrom describes… by the seashore…?

Viewing 2 reply threads
Reply To: What about passion and compassion?
Your information: