|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: Would you support this proposal? | |||
Yes | 3 | 11.54% | |
No | 23 | 88.46% | |
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-17-2014, 03:43 PM | #101 (permalink) |
Ask me how!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The States
Posts: 5,354
|
Sure it does. It's all to maintain our homeostasis, however we perceive it. Remember when I said that our idea of "group existence" overrides our individual existence, because we're social creatures? We perceive the survival of the group as more important than our own survival, a part of our behavior which is easily exploited, and is the root of the psychological tactics used by cult leaders and politicians to get people to do their bidding.
|
12-17-2014, 03:54 PM | #103 (permalink) |
Ask me how!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The States
Posts: 5,354
|
The key word is "benefit", which is the same as saying moving closer to homeostasis. You're helping the group, even if it is a group of only you and one other person. When you associate deeply with other people, psychologically you consider you and them to be one and the same. Anyway, I'd love to discuss this further, but maybe this isn't the right thread for all of this?
|
12-17-2014, 04:16 PM | #105 (permalink) | ||
Zum Henker Defätist!!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,199
|
Quote:
However, this situation didn't come about to be due to any conscious decision. It was an emergent adaptation caused by the infinitely complex mechanism that governs evolution. I'm sure this is also why a parent would give up their lives to save a child, or why a soldier would jump on a grenade to save his comrades. We've probably been programmed to do so for much the same reason, and by the same evolutionary process, that caused a fat cell to be part of an organism that will destroy it when it becomes necessary for the survival of the collective.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
|