Do we belong to humankind?

Post Reply New Topic

There is something missing in these posts, something missing in my posts. The frank admission the we (I) substantially (and this adverb is already an abject compromise) do not belong to the human species. Is easy and fluid communication between individuals a prerequisite of humanity? If it is (and I don’t say that, the way it develops, it is a good thing) a point of superiority over other species, but a way to corrupt communication in instrumentality, more or less in reciprocal exploitation, we do not belong to the human species. If we are not monsters, serial killers (many “contractors” are just that), if we are not seriously autistic, refusing to talk with others, it is because we lack the necessary amount of aggressiveness, of cruelty, of fun in doing harm, like Alex of Clockorange, or Stangelove, or the myriads of serial killers who populate our movie theatres and with which many identify, vicariously enjoyng their misdeeds. We are content to pet a cat or a dog and we accept to have a mutilated communication with humans for expedience or compromise or weakness.

I feel a part of Humankind Paolo. Alienation (I use this word very broadly, as usage of words like 'wrong' or 'alien' I find void of beauty or meaning for me) for me is complete when I become identified with my exclusive group, totally satisfied with my role, & convince myself that any other identity or role is inconceivable.

I feel that a human being who sweats under his 'alien mask', whose role makes him itch with discomfort, who hates division in him/herself, is already beginning to be free.

i think we belong to our creator. whoever that might be

Yes, I think so too.

I've never felt part of humanity really. But it doesn't bother me. Not part of the 'normal' tribe, maybe belonging a little to 'Aspie' tribe, if that is not an oxymoron (Aspie+belonging) I feel neither superior nor inferior to members of the tribe normal. Just that I live a parallel life to them. I'm in my groove, they are in theirs.
A mutilated communication it might be but not through weakness, maybe through compromise, I think always it has to be so, because words are used. But it is more 'this is how it is for me, if you are interested', but only with an individual. Groups...I don't do them, lol.

In order for two organisms to be considered part of a different species they must be unable to inter-breed.

NT's and Aspies can breed sometimes so they are the same species.

In order for AS to be a seperate species there'd need to be major changes in the structure of your DNA and that of an NT. You're still human, just a little different.

I've never felt part of this world either.
First, I was the third one of a family of five children.
Second my family belongs to the Jehovas' witnesses organization.
Third, live in a foreign country. My husband is foreign.
Fourth I have AS.
Fifth, I don't work.
Sixth I have a BA in Fine Art. My art doesn't fit in galleries either.
Seven, I constantly change residences (seven houses in 4 years)
I only belong in my own world.

What does it mean to belong? I know of people who have been begotten, but have never known their parents. Do they belong to their biological parents who, in turn do not know each other and the birth is due to a collective rape, after which the mother abandoned them immediately after deliverance? Is there a family here? I know that the biological definition of a species is based on the possibility of interbreeding. But is this relevant here?

Karl Kraus wrote The last days of humanity during WW1, a war in which 30m of dead were the result of reciprocal slaughtering, among people who belonged to the same culture, to the same ethnicities, who had no personal motive to hate each other and acted only because they were obliged to obey to the monstrous machinery of forced enlistment after a little touch of drilling an shrill propaganda. They were boys 18-20 years old, stripped by their field and factories. When the war was over the was no attempt to atonement. All the cities of Europe are disseminated of monuments (kitch monuments) with the name of the fallen, and many many squares are decorated with statues of those same generals who directed the slaughters. It is as if at Auschwitz there were now the statues of Himmler, Hitler and of the commanders of the extermination camps.
Yes all these people, victim and executioners, could have interbred, but did they constitute a community to which one might want to belong? Does something like this happen among animal species?

Inability to interbread is no longer considered an essential element of the definition of "Species". The domestic dog and the wolf are most definitely not the same species but freely interbreed (Ref: The Domestic Dog - Cambridge University Press)

Let’s put it this way. Man in nature is a case apart. Not in the sense that he is superior. The great majority live in a brutish way and… against nature. Only some small pieces of them conduct their life in a decent way. Mothers behave as good mothers in large numbers (But not those who sell their children to Asian brothels, and these are millions). Men fight and strive to procure food and protection for their women and children. But here they lose often themselves in ambition, careerism, compromise, cynicism, opportunism, unforgivable violence and cruelty. If you give a look to the crowded highways and ask yourself: what the hell are all these ants doing; are they producing primary goods (food and elementary shelter for their families)? The answer is no. They move like cogs of a gigantic machine whose final product is war, repression, lies (all the ad industry), marketing, research to produce an increasing quantity of crap (mobiles to be used as toys etc), pollutants, products to feign to reduce pollution (methanol cars). (to follow)

you guys might belong to humankind

But I don't think I do. I don't think the same God that created you created me too. I am a child of a different God


Merle

On the other side inclinations to protect animals of different species, and even plants (the tree huggers) exist in humans and are sometimes very strong. There are people who would miss their dog more than a human (Patricia Highsmith, A dog’s Ransom, same you can find in many novels and essays of Coetzee, and in our personal experience of course). What does that mean? As these feelings are instinctive, passionate, they must be wired in our mind. Perhaps, in a complicated way does this support Lovelock’s Gaia theses? Perhaps the only real community is life? Or Life? Could this be a matter of faith? Like in Asian religions, Tao, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, where the so called feeding chain is not necessarily denied but there is nothing of the anthropocentrism of Judeo Christian religions? These are only questions.

What's Lovelock's Gaia thesis?

And- I think we are as human as anyone. . .

I think humanity is pretty varied, at that there are more aspies and aspie like folks out there than anyone realizes. . . we do tend to lay low and avoid people, makes it hard to run into each other. . .

From somewhere in the web.

"Gaia theory is the name for a group of hypotheses including some aspects of the ideas that the creatures on a planet modify the nature of the planet, that all creatures on a planet are regulated to the benefit of the whole, and that the entire life biomass and the non-living things which compose the total mass of the earth form a type of regulatory system which in itself would be considered a living being, which is referred to as Gaia.

Whilst some would argue that forms of Gaia theory are embedded in many religions and cultures, it was first proposed as a more formal theory by James Lovelock"

Lovelock is a very serious scientist whose work and inventions have been largely been used by NASA. He is no "New age" man. His theories have much affinity with Gregory Bateson, a British anthropologist and philosopher who worked with von Neumann about communication theory. Also similar ideas were held by Fitjof Capra, and the Chileans Maturana and Varela. Lovelock is criticized by enviromentalists for his support of nuclear power. On the other end he is very pessimist, foreseeing a catastrophe on the planet within 50 or 100 years.

Thanks. . .

that sounds fairly reasonable to me. .

War, Commerce, and Materialism all bring out solidarity in fellow man. It's an us against the world mentality. Our country, our company, our home versus yours. Logically this doesn't make a lot of sense; because it skips the first question which is why do we have these countries, companies, families, exc in the first place. Once something exists people don't want to mess with the why question anymore even if what exists doesn't even work or has become obsolete. So in a long winded way to answer your question culturally at times I don't feel human because my perceptions on everything differs so greatly from the vast majority.

Case in point. I blame the current human mentality for being oblivious to their own social downfall on the distorted meaning of happiness. People think of happiness as a stopping point in their existence. Such as if I buy a house, get a job with benefits, get married, have children, exc. my life will be complete and I can sit back and enjoy the fruits of my labor. The problem is the list is demanding and feeds on itself to the point that soon someone's life becomes this wish list. With all human energy being spent on lists to meet a metaphysical state of happiness it's no wonder the planet's a mess and social science is eons behind natural science.