Destructive Self Fulfilling Prophecy

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance
#1

[b]I think civilization is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Self fulfilling prophecy being:[/b]

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that, in being made, actually causes itself to become true. For example, in the stock market, if it is widely believed that a crash is imminent, investors may lose confidence, sell most of their stock, and actually cause the crash. Or, if a candidate in an election openly declares he does not believe he can win, this may increase voter apathy and result in poor support for his campaign.
In other words, a false prophetic statement — a prophecy declared as truth when it is not — may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the false prophecy.

The effects of teacher attitudes, beliefs and values, affecting their expectations have been tested repeatedly.[2]

I also believe nature has nothing to do with civilized means of existance by having no influence on us whatsoever in such constraints of our own making.

Our suffering is because we have blocked out the influence of nature entirely.

#2

I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say. :-\ Care to clarify?

#3

I am basically saying that nature had no influence in the creation of civilization as it was an extension of man operating his destructive self fulfilling prophecy of his own making.

#4

I’m not sure how accurate that statement is, as “society” is not something exclusive to homo sapiens. They work similarly throughout the animal kingdom. Civilization may be a different story, although I often view ant-hills like a roman empire. :smiley:

#5

yes, watch out when you mix society with civilization, while they may have similarities, they are vastly different.

Society:
1: companionship or association with one’s fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : a voluntary association of individuals for common ends;
3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests4 a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity.

I’d say societies are every bit in our nature, and that we had ‘societies’ before civilization. Humans are social creatures and society stems from that.
It links with civilization in the fact that civilization involves cities/states and in a massive amount of people different societies may form within each other. I would put the group of people on this forum as a ‘society’.

#6

Civilizations are a subset of societies. All civilizations are societies, but only some societies are civilizations.

All human populations have societies. Very few have civilizations.

#7

[quote=“TheJoker, post:1, topic:350”][b]I think society and civilization is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Self fulfilling prophecy being:[/b]

[quote]In other words, a false prophetic statement — a prophecy declared as truth when it is not — may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the false prophecy.

The effects of teacher attitudes, beliefs and values, affecting their expectations have been tested repeatedly.[2][/quote]

I also believe nature has nothing to do with society or our civilized means of existance by having no influence on us whatsoever.

Our suffering is because we have blocked out the influence of nature entirely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_fulfilling_prophecy[/quote]

First of all, I don’t understand how you go about equating civilization or society with a prophecy. Do you mean the mentalities of civilization’s members?

Secondly, I think if anything, civilization proves the opposite tendency from self-fulfilling prophecy. The bulk of civilization believes that it will not fail and never crash. Their false prophecy of civilization’s permanence will not influence people to fulfil that prophecy. On the contrary, the false prophecy will actually bring about the destruction of civilization. The more we see civilization as something that cannot falter, the more voraciously we will consume our resources and intensify the complexities which assure civilization’s demise.

#8

True. I meant to say civilization.

( I was half asleep making that post.)

#9

[quote=“Fenriswolfr, post:5, topic:350”]yes, watch out when you mix society with civilization, while they may have similarities, they are vastly different.

Society:
1: companionship or association with one’s fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : a voluntary association of individuals for common ends;
3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests4 a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity.

I’d say societies are every bit in our nature, and that we had ‘societies’ before civilization. Humans are social creatures and society stems from that.
It links with civilization in the fact that civilization involves cities/states and in a massive amount of people different societies may form within each other. I would put the group of people on this forum as a ‘society’.[/quote]

Well put… I messed up my own post. :-\

#10

[quote=“Fenriswolfr, post:5, topic:350”]yes, watch out when you mix society with civilization, while they may have similarities, they are vastly different.

Society:
1: companionship or association with one’s fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : a voluntary association of individuals for common ends;
3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests4 a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity.

I’d say societies are every bit in our nature, and that we had ‘societies’ before civilization. Humans are social creatures and society stems from that.
It links with civilization in the fact that civilization involves cities/states and in a massive amount of people different societies may form within each other. I would put the group of people on this forum as a ‘society’.[/quote]

Let’s see what the definition of civilization is in comparison for our current conversation.

[b]Civilization.[/b]

An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.

http://www.answers.com/Civilization

[b]The total product of human creativity and intellect: culture, Kultur. See culture/nature. Enlightenment and excellent taste resulting from intellectual development: cultivation, culture, refinement. See culture/nature.[/b]

Civilization seems to be a description of creativity or man’s intellectualism in comparison to society.

#11

[quote=“WildeRix, post:7, topic:350”][quote author=TheJoker link=topic=372.msg3696#msg3696 date=1187217324]
[b]I think society and civilization is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Self fulfilling prophecy being:[/b]

[quote]In other words, a false prophetic statement — a prophecy declared as truth when it is not — may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the false prophecy.

The effects of teacher attitudes, beliefs and values, affecting their expectations have been tested repeatedly.[2][/quote]

I also believe nature has nothing to do with society or our civilized means of existance by having no influence on us whatsoever.

Our suffering is because we have blocked out the influence of nature entirely.

[/quote]

First of all, I don’t understand how you go about equating civilization or society with a prophecy. Do you mean the mentalities of civilization’s members?

Secondly, I think if anything, civilization proves the opposite tendency from self-fulfilling prophecy. The bulk of civilization believes that it will not fail and never crash. Their false prophecy of civilization’s permanence will not influence people to fulfil that prophecy. On the contrary, the false prophecy will actually bring about the destruction of civilization. The more we see civilization as something that cannot falter, the more voraciously we will consume our resources and intensify the complexities which assure civilization’s demise.[/quote]

First of all, I don't understand how you go about equating civilization or society with a prophecy. Do you mean the mentalities of civilization's members?

I didn’t mean to say society as that is completely different to civilization as a whole in description. ( What I meant to say was civilization only.)

If we see civilization as the focal point as man’s creativity and intellectualism it could be said that such mental projections in themselves have become a destructive self fulfilling prophecy in that it is:

[b]A false prophetic statement — a prophecy declared as truth when it is not — may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the false prophecy. [/b]
Secondly, I think if anything, civilization proves the opposite tendency from self-fulfilling prophecy. The bulk of civilization believes that it will not fail and never crash.

True but ultimately this can be see as misdirection on their part.

See The Above Quote.

Their false prophecy of civilization's permanence will not influence people to fulfil that prophecy. On the contrary, the false prophecy will actually bring about the destruction of civilization. The more we see civilization as something that cannot falter, the more voraciously we will consume our resources and intensify the complexities which assure civilization's demise.

I understand what you are saying and hopefully this recent post will help you see my own perceptions on this matter.

#12

[quote=“jason, post:6, topic:350”]Civilizations are a subset of societies. All civilizations are societies, but only some societies are civilizations.

All human populations have societies. Very few have civilizations.[/quote]

Societies are all about informal existances of collective individuals living together.

Civilization is more prone to creativity and intellectualism which revolves around a authority guiding presence.

#13
Societies are all about informal existances of collective individuals living together..

I think they can be as formal or informal as they evolve to be. In cultures developed over millenia, I think the societies would lean more towards a higher formality.

Civilization is more prone to creativity and intellectualism which revolves around a authority guiding presence

More prone than what? Than indigenous cultures? Actually, I think civilization’s creativity and intellectualism pale in comparison to indigenous example I have seen.

True but ultimately this can be see as misdirection on their part.

Sure. But that doesn’t make it any more self-fulfilling. It still defeats itself in the end.

#14

I think they can be as formal or informal as they evolve to be. In cultures developed over millenia, I think the societies would lean more towards a higher formality.

More prone than what? Than indigenous cultures? Actually, I think civilization’s creativity and intellectualism pale in comparison to indigenous example I have seen.

[quote]True but ultimately this can be see as misdirection on their part.
[/quote]

Sure. But that doesn’t make it any more self-fulfilling. It still defeats itself in the end.[/quote]

I think they can be as formal or informal as they evolve to be. In cultures developed over millenia, I think the societies would lean more towards a higher formality.

My description only pertains to isolated primitive cultures.

I think that once any culture acquires private property, agriculture and a centralized leadership it then becomes a civilization as those three things are the hallmarks of civility.

More prone than what? Than indigenous cultures? Actually, I think civilization's creativity and intellectualism pale in comparison to indigenous example I have seen.

I meant to say that civilization is more prone to creativity and intellectualism as we know it today conventionally.

I am not saying a tribe doesn’t have these attributes but merely saying that such things hold more prominence in civilized cultures.

I would also say that civilization is ruled by economicism a constructed social science in comparison to primitive societies where distribution is unheard of since everything is shared among the members.

Sure. But that doesn't make it any more self-fulfilling. It still defeats itself in the end.

Agreed. I think somewhere in this conversation we got lost in translation but essentially we are saying the same thing.

#15
I think they can be as formal or informal as they evolve to be. In cultures developed over millenia, I think the societies would lean more towards a higher formality.
My description only pertains to isolated primitive cultures.

I think that once any culture acquires private property, agriculture and a centralized leadership it then becomes a civilization as those three things are the hallmarks of civility.

If by “informal existences” you meant to refer to a lack of complexity and hierarchy, then I understand what you mean. Ownership, agriculture (as distinguished from horticulture) and centralized leadership definitely stand as the red flags of civilization.

More prone than what? Than indigenous cultures? Actually, I think civilization's creativity and intellectualism pale in comparison to indigenous example I have seen.
I meant to say that civilization is more prone to creativity and intellectualism as we know it today conventionally.

I am not saying a tribe doesn’t have these attributes but merely saying that such things hold more prominence in civilized cultures.

So you’re saying civilization is more prone to produce civilized art and civilized intellectualism? Yes, civilization is more prone to be civilized. The air is also more prone to be airy, and water is more prone to be wet.

If you’re saying that civilized creativity and intellectualism differ from the creativity and intellectualism of indigenous people, then I would agree. But I can’t agree with the idea that art an intellectualism hold more prominence in civilized cultures than in wild ones. In fact, I would think the opposite holds true. Art and creativity pervade even the most mundane artifacts in indigenous cultures, and the brains of wild people have not gone through the 10% attrition that our domesticated brains have endured.

They definitely use their creativity and intellectualism differently than we do. We tend to use them for escape. Our art takes us out of this life we hate, our thoughts and philosophies try to find a way to rationalize or explain the things we hate about our culture. Indigenous art, on the other hand, upholds the relationships between man and the rest of the universe.

Sure. But that doesn't make it any more self-fulfilling. It still defeats itself in the end.
Agreed. I think somewhere in this conversation we got lost in translation but essentially we are saying the same thing.

No, you started out the conversation saying something self-contradictory, and I showed you the contradiction. In no way does that work out to indicate us saying the same thing. Maybe you meant to say the things I said, but you definitely didn’t. In fact, you said the opposite.

#16

[quote=TheJoker]My description only pertains to isolated primitive cultures.

I think that once any culture acquires private property, agriculture and a centralized leadership it then becomes a civilization as those three things are the hallmarks of civility.[/quote]

If by “informal existences” you meant to refer to a lack of complexity and hierarchy, then I understand what you mean. Ownership, agriculture (as distinguished from horticulture) and centralized leadership definitely stand as the red flags of civilization.

[quote=TheJoker]I meant to say that civilization is more prone to creativity and intellectualism as we know it today conventionally.

I am not saying a tribe doesn’t have these attributes but merely saying that such things hold more prominence in civilized cultures.[/quote]

So you’re saying civilization is more prone to produce civilized art and civilized intellectualism? Yes, civilization is more prone to be civilized. The air is also more prone to be airy, and water is more prone to be wet.

If you’re saying that civilized creativity and intellectualism differ from the creativity and intellectualism of indigenous people, then I would agree. But I can’t agree with the idea that art an intellectualism hold more prominence in civilized cultures than in wild ones. In fact, I would think the opposite holds true. Art and creativity pervade even the most mundane artifacts in indigenous cultures, and the brains of wild people have not gone through the 10% attrition that our domesticated brains have endured.

They definitely use their creativity and intellectualism differently than we do. We tend to use them for escape. Our art takes us out of this life we hate, our thoughts and philosophies try to find a way to rationalize or explain the things we hate about our culture. Indigenous art, on the other hand, upholds the relationships between man and the rest of the universe.

No, you started out the conversation saying something self-contradictory, and I showed you the contradiction. In no way does that work out to indicate us saying the same thing. Maybe you meant to say the things I said, but you definitely didn’t. In fact, you said the opposite.[/quote]

If by "informal existences" you meant to refer to a lack of complexity and hierarchy, then I understand what you mean. Ownership, agriculture (as distinguished from horticulture) and centralized leadership definitely stand as the red flags of civilization.

That’s what I mean.

If you're saying that civilized creativity and intellectualism differ from the creativity and intellectualism of indigenous people, then I would agree.

That’s also what I meant.

They definitely use their creativity and intellectualism differently than we do. We tend to use them for escape. Our art takes us out of this life we hate, our thoughts and philosophies try to find a way to rationalize or explain the things we hate about our culture. Indigenous art, on the other hand, upholds the relationships between man and the rest of the universe.

I can agree with that.

No, you started out the conversation saying something self-contradictory, and I showed you the contradiction. In no way does that work out to indicate us saying the same thing. Maybe you meant to say the things I said, but you definitely didn't. In fact, you said the opposite.

… Sure.