Throughout the evolution of time, and throughout every culture, humanity always had some values that it upheld. Whether these values included proper behaviors, family life, respecting the Gods, humanity never lived in a vacuum of values.
Now, if you observe closely, the word "value" indicates that it is something that is measured and may even fall or rise - just like a stock or a commodity. In this analogy, society is like the stock exchange: It facilitates the rise and fall of certain values.
For example, we know for a fact that marriage is not valued today in western societies as much as it was just half a century ago. Relationships are also "free-er" with less rigid "structures" as the values of personal freedom and women rights are on the rise, while the value of a marriage contract has gone down and can be nullified pretty fast - even for objectively insignificant reasons.
Going against the tide
Speaking against the human values that are highly esteemed at any given point of time can be regarded as antisocial behavior. In fact collective behavior tends to conform in a pattern of direct or indirect support of the established values.
So values beget behaviors, and then those who go against either the collective values, or behaviors, seem "abnormal". In a sense, we buy our "ticket" of being perceived "normal" by supporting the existing paradigm of values and value-based behavior.
Now contemplate this scenario: 2000 years ago, when slavery, woman inequality, "eye-for-an-eye" and similar cultural values were in place, a man named Jesus was proclaiming equality, openly discussing with women who were strangers to him (a huge no-no at the time) while also promoting non-violence. While his values were "superior" - from our current perspective, the propagation of these values quickly led to his demise because they weren't perceived nicely back then.
Humanity advancing (?)
We'd think that since we have, more or less, "fixed" the issues from 2000 years ago, we are more "advanced" and therefore justified into looking down these regressive people of the past. But are we really so different?
We may have shifted in terms of what values we consider valuable, in some aspects of life, by gradually updating our collective mind-software, but that doesn't mean that our current values will not be obsolete in another 100-200-500 years. While it may be evident in 100-200-500 years from now, for most people of our time, it isn't.
A thought experiment
If a human came here right now, from 2116, and told us our collective mistakes in our value system, by dissecting them as clearly as humanity of 2016 can dissect those from 1800 and 1900, we would probably be in a state of denial. We would argue he is wrong... very wrong.... We might even try to "crucify" him for trying to implement a "destructive" philosophical system / value system in our society - a system that we believe will have destructive consequences to our society.
Now, imagine you are that time traveler from 2116. What you see in 2016 is absurdity everywhere: The human values and related behaviors are, for the most part, absurd.
If you oppose the system, chances are that you'll alienate everyone and then become a negative example - something to avoid. But that will have the exact opposite influence on what you desire to do. Whatever philosophical system you may try to "push" will also be negatively labeled in relation to you (because you are also negatively-labeled).
Additionally, when you write something you'll also have to factor two things:
1) How you will be perceived in the present time from current (2016) humanity which doesn't understand
2) How you will be perceived in the future - since in the future it is known that you knew about the higher values and you had a historic responsibility to do something but instead of using your knowledge to elevate the state of humanity from its relative darkness, you chose to easy way to keep silent.
So what do you do? It seems like an impossible situation to be in.
The arts and technologies acting as gateways
Instead of trying to "reason" through debate in a system heavily vested in favor of the current values, one can use the arts or technology as gateways for superior models to emerge.
For example, a futuristic movie can have a greater philosophical impact in the masses than any philosophical essay could ever have. By demonstrating a template of future-values, and the proper positive associations with the characters and story, the impact in society can be profound.
In a similar way, technologies can be used as a "Trojan horse" by being associated with higher values. A useful technology, which is also based in a future value, allows that future value to be illuminated and embraced for the self-evident gains that it brings. A good example would be decentralized money technologies - which are a radical departure from the classic hierarchical-based and centralized money system that promotes debt-slavery.
However, the same process can also be used (and is being used) to implement newer value models that are regressive - by overstating some element and understating another. For example, Hollywood might show us how "effective" it is to torture terrorists to extract "vital info" because "due process is too slow to prevent an impending terrorist attack". In light of this theoretic scenario, one can more readily accept abuses in basic human rights. Something similar could be done to "promote" the "benefits" of full-spectrum surveillance of the citizens.
Keeping an open mind
I have been purposefully vague regarding the existing value system deficiencies, allowing the reader to keep an open mind for all those areas that our current values are considered OK but in reality are sub-optimal.
While the cognitive load to doubt existing "structures" can be pretty high, it is also the element that allows pioneers to advance humanity. Without doubting the existing paradigm, even when that involves human values which seem relatively stable, one would never be able to advance beyond it.
Great Post. Reflects much about my thought process.
Everything changes, including values. Everything is subjective depending how the masses reflect to their random environment at a point in time.
Most of my confrontational stance is aimed towards those who are "too sure" about the world—ready to deduct conclusions and solutions, make "predictions" and decide what is best for everyone.
I am absolute about the fact that nothing is absolute. So far this stance has rewarded me massively.
Indeed. When even scientists discover that constants such as the speed of light aren't that "constant" (even by tiny margins), we can only imagine what that means for something as dynamic, evolving and complex as the totality of humanity that involves billions of living beings interacting in a chaotic manner...
I love this post. Congrats. Resteemed!
Glad you liked it :)
Great post @alexgr, your observations of the dichotomy between value and behaviour are fascinating, especially in the realm of relationships. Thank you!
I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the relative behaviours manifested by the individual in relation to the broader community. For example, polygamy was accepted many years ago due to the high incidence of pregnancies not reaching full term, mother's death in childbirth (and child's death) and the high incidence of infant mortality (under 5 years). The physical development of mankind has been negligible but the mental capacity is being stretched. It is now mooted that altruism is a Darwinian trait for the survival of the human race, as an aside.
Can or could such an understanding overcome the primal lust of men to see their genes into future generations. In other words, does the intellectual argument outweigh the physical desire in both values and behaviours?
We do have the example of Japan where marriages are slowing down and child-births are hitting all time lows, so, they may well be the answer to that.
In my opinion the more intellectual the human species becomes, the greater the success rate in controlling (not necessarily suppressing) the primal urges. I think the primal urge is not necessarily representative of what humans really want. It's like the "shadow" of a body, but the body remails elusive.
Say I'm really attracted to a female. No, let's start elsewhere. Let's say I see a very beautiful ass... My mind is like "I want to touch this". Let's say I ask the girl and she gives me the go ahead and I touch her ass. Does this give me the joy that I hoped it would? I mean the act is overrated compared to the expectation. The act, when you do it, doesn't even give a fraction of the expected reward. In fact you may even feel like an idiot for what you are doing. As you are touching another body and getting nowhere near what you expected, you start wondering: "What am I doing? Isn't this silly?".
Now let's escalate the scenario. My primal mind tells me that I have to grab her and have sex with her. Let's say I do have sex with her. Does this give me joy? Again, the realized levels of joy are nothing compared to the expected levels that one has in their mind. It's like the physical act is completely overrated based on the primal motive-expectation. The more intellectual someone is, the faster they will understand this. And the more spiritual one is, the faster they will understand that the body-union is unfullfiling because what a man (or woman) really wants, is to merge with the other in a soul-level, which is impossible due to the body-cages that "cover" the souls. The "this-thing-goes-there" in terms of body parts can never fill something as fundamental as love.
The closest manifestation of love in the human domain is hugging because this is precisely what brings the two hearts closer together than anything else. The hearts have a quantum link to the soul, so hugging, while in a state of proper mind-heart tuning, will be the closest one will get to even approach something like the union of souls (under normal / non-psychedelic circumstances). But it will still be insufficient. Our bodies act as "suits" that prevent the souls from "merging". It's like asking two astronauts to touch one another. It's impossible.
Most, if not all, primal urges are based on false expectations and misunderstandings. It's like nature is trying to trick us into doing things that we would not ordinarily do, or avoid things that we would do. It is my expectation that all primal urges will, over time, be properly understood and channeled, first intellectually, then spiritually (or, let's say, with a yet higher and more encompassing intellect - it's similar to saying spiritual). While it might sound far fetched, we have come a very long way. For example, most intense disagreements used to be settled with pure violence. Now we are more "civilized" and only a tiny fraction gets violent. There is a certain level of intellectual mastery involved as people can now do real-time cost/reward calculations on what it'd mean (socially) to escalate into violence, even while primally triggered.
Hi @alexgr, if we take these concepts/arguments about the human condition down through their natural paths we arrive at a very uncomfortable place for the governors of peoples.
Much as they had the 'Forms' of Plato and the surprisingly advanced philosophy of Socrates, there was a lot of unruliness in various parts of the known world. Controls were needed to fetter the people sufficiently to avert overthrows of kingdoms and countries. Religion became the saviour of the ruling classes. Cathedrals were built as demonstrations of power and might. The murmurings against exorbitant and usurious taxes were quelled and law and order held sway.
In spite of the silly numbers bandied about over numbers of Christians, Muslims and Hindus, there is a decreasing amount of religion practiced today. This decline coincided with the Golden Age of the 1890's and early into the twentieth century.
Rulers needed a new control. One such mechanism was war. This had a certain effect but could never be a long-term solution. The clever men of the US really got it right when they understood the value of a country's money supply. JP Morgan, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Bush and co. started the Federal Reserve in the early part of the twentieth century. They earned money on money and orchestrated the economy of what soon became the most powerful nation on earth. Debt is the new religion and few people will risk their primary asset (house) to fight in earnest against the American machine.
Debt systems are now controlling a vast percentage of the western world. Water may soon become its ally.
Greed is not, in my experience, the biggest emotion of mankind but it certainly does bring about the greatest amount of action or reaction. Endless dinner conversations about the value of one's home should provide sufficient info for that.
So, in summing up, I think that the modernisation of society has altered and honed behaviours but it is through externally imposed limitations and threats (The Law) that we succumb to the wishes of the ruling elite.
Indeed. But if most of the people weren't convinced that the existence of the law (and those who enforce it) wasn't beneficial, we would have totally different systems in place. What the Elite do, is take the more abstract concepts of Law and enforcement and ride on their back to implement their own (very specific) agendas. That's where society is manipulated in taking the useless (Elite agenda) along with the more useful part (an ordered society).
This is where all these things get fuzzy ... I very much doubt that the US, as an example, would be able to survive the test. The legal systems and structures do nothing for the average Joe but make the elite very rich. As Rothschild famously said, "give me control of a country's money supply and it can have whatever laws it wants". The Law, and our definition thereof, is much more than laws, rules and regulations, it must include social norms and constructs.
Social values have, as someone else remarked on your post, declined to such levels as to be floored as well as flawed. Our institutions such as Governments, Central Banks, the UN, The Red Cross (e.g. in Haiti), Funds Management, big businesses are all riddled with malpractice, fraud and simple theft.
Conversely, and by the same social standards, our expectation to consume faster than we can produce continues unchecked.
Whether it be the meteoric rise of the credit card since the 60's & 70's which has given millions access to unearned cash or the even bigger rise in the value, pursuit of and adoration of 'fame' which has given society an insatiable appetite for the untenable, unachievable and unaffordable.
My suspicion is that highly developed societies are so clouded in by strong drivers which are completely unnecessary to their prosperity that they have blinded themselves and have bought a new device which makes the people believe they can see. It is this new view of the world, this new set of lenses, couched in various guises of consumerism which keeps people anaesthetised and ignorant of the depths of their emptiness.
This is paying it forward in the most cynical of manners imaginable. Nations everywhere seem to have cottoned on. Institutional exploitation of people is the game. Hugo Chavez's daughter is reputedly worth about $4.2Bn. Billion! Not million, Billion. I see more and more of his citizens here in Ecuador every day. They have paid it forward and the daughter has the cheque. The expectations of the people cannot be met. They paid on Visa and are expecting to receive in cash but the piggy bank does not even rattle! In fact the pig is not only devoid of a rattle, it contains a large IOU.
"So, let's do a selfie, post it on Facebook and go to the Mall. I really need to see the new Samsung Galaxy S21, get my hair and nails done and see my therapist. Oh, and I have to be home by 6pm, the dog groomer gets real mad if I am late."
stipulated.
in other news...water is wet.
how has it EVER been different?
Yes, it has been different, though by degree; one could further argue that semantics are at fault.
Q: Where does milk come from? A: cartons.
Situation: there is water coming through the ceiling.
Response: call the plumber/landlord/your father
Q: What is 4 x 58? A: wait a sec, I'll get my phone.
Situation: Button missing on shirt.
Response: Get another one ... shirt.
It is the old story of sticking a frog in a pot of boiling water versus putting a frog in a pot of cold water and turning the gas on. My suggestion is that the water is indeed wet and it will indeed become unbearable but we may not be able to understand that the problem is with the water.
human values are very low at the moment