I suppose my main inquiry was, do we know that violent video games are not having a negative effect on us. Both the individual and human consciousness as a whole.Originally Posted by Fusionista
What is it that you wish to achieve ? Is this discussion an intellectual inquiry (which is fine) or have you an object in mind ? Are we trying for example to decide whether playing violent games is 'good' or 'bad' for one ? The answer depends on where you are and where you want to go. Is it good or bad for children ? IMHO no-one knows - my kids don't seem to be psychopaths. Is the question about letting kids on the internet unsupervised ? Well the internet is just another 'space' isn't it ? Would you let your 7-year-old walk in the park unsupervised ? The original question was about bullying and justice, both of which depend massively on the observer. Or are you trying to discover how the mechanism, or part of it, works ? Big one, that
It reminds me of the story about how soldiers would often shoot into the air rather than kill another human. And how new training techniques can focus their aggression and make them more willing to kill.
Although after what we have discussed I would come to the conclusion that the "fear" of killing someone was also a conditioned state.
Is there a link here with video games?
Of course it's not all about video games, they could only ever be a very small part of it.
I do have an object in mind but there is a genuine intellectual inquiry, I am prepared to be proven wrong, and I am trying not to be biased.
I think that aggression is used to gain dominance, and I believe "working together" is a better, more logical approach. That could be a matter of opinion...but is there a logical process?
I remember a Yogi once saying something like...The Buddhists put the cart before the horse. Practising dis-attachment will not necessarily bring enlightenment. Enlightenment will bring dis-attachment.
Last edited by DaveMcK; 1st December 2012 at 11:10 AM.
BIG discussion. Let me see if I can put a skeletal framework to it. Human beings span a huge range of consciousness levels. At the bottom we are no different to animals - it's all about personal survival. At the top (?) it's...something completely differentEach 'higher' (actually larger) level subsumes and integrates the previous levels.
Thus, it is no use talking about 'logic' to a bat, 'cooperation' to a tiger or democracy to a tribesman. At those levels it is about dominance and submission.
So... violence and aggression are inbuilt characteristics of the human animal. At the higher levels of consciousness, these instincts (firmware, if you will) are controlled, at the lower levels not. It follows that a monk (to reprise the earlier discussion) knows that he is playing a game - a game of expressing 'lower' instincts, perhaps. It may or may not detract from his goals, that is a question of awareness. Someone who is unaware of their own instincts may be expressing them as it were 'safely', or s/he may be fostering/developing/training those instincts, with or without awareness (eg the US Army is now using such games software to train soldiers).
There is a simpler, practical aspect to it. It is generally acknowledged that Western societies are much less violent than they used to be. Do we know this for sure ? No, but it is a working hypothesis. If it is wrong, we will find out sooner or later.
Nasty, brutish and slightly above average height
This is interesting. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that instincts are learned, not "inbuilt". They could already be developing before birth from the mother or other external stimuli. It could well be that some things are passed through our parents DNA, I'm not sure. Even so that could be emotions that have been "learned" from our ancestors.BIG discussion. Let me see if I can put a skeletal framework to it. Human beings span a huge range of consciousness levels. At the bottom we are no different to animals - it's all about personal survival. At the top (?) it's...something completely different
Thus, it is no use talking about 'logic' to a bat, 'cooperation' to a tiger or democracy to a tribesman. At those levels it is about dominance and submission.
So... violence and aggression are inbuilt characteristics of the human animal. At the higher levels of consciousness, these instincts (firmware, if you will) are controlled, at the lower levels not. It follows that a monk (to reprise the earlier discussion) knows that he is playing a game - a game of expressing 'lower' instincts, perhaps. It may or may not detract from his goals, that is a question of awareness. Someone who is unaware of their own instincts may be expressing them as it were 'safely', or s/he may be fostering/developing/training those instincts, with or without awareness (eg the US Army is now using such games software to train soldiers).
We generally learn to fear pain pretty quick...hunger even, and then develop a more complex and hopefully more logical understanding. I wouldn't try to talk to a bat about logic but I think it has it's own limited logic.
There is obviously aggression in the world, lions etc, but it is interesting to think we might be evolving beyond that to a new "stage" of consciousness. Funnily enough in a lot of tribes it is the "elder" that gets top position. I suppose that's fairly logical, albeit a little basic.
As I said, I think that instincts are learned and re-learned throughout our lives. As Frank said, It is important to be aware of them and IMO to look at them logically without prejudice or emotion to make sure they remain to be affective. Of course that wouldn't always be easy.
I don't think even the most devote monk could claim to be in total control of his self. In Buddhism it is all about practice, practice, practice. I think we could all do with a bit more awareness though.
I don't know if a monk would even want to play a violent video game. Maybe a young one would be curious but like most people I think that the older (wiser?) ones would be less interested...and probably try and steer the younger ones away from that.
Since we have been talking about Buddhist monks, here is a little something from the Dalai Lama.There is a simpler, practical aspect to it. It is generally acknowledged that Western societies are much less violent than they used to be. Do we know this for sure ? No, but it is a working hypothesis. If it is wrong, we will find out sooner or later.
http://www.dalailama.com/messages/wo...roach-to-peace
Of course Buddhism is very varied and there are a lot of different beliefs under that title.
Last edited by DaveMcK; 1st December 2012 at 04:58 PM.
Well, I am not going to argue with his HolinessIn general I agree with his thesis. However, he is IMHO making a big assumption which which I do not concur. My experience has been that just because someone has a human body, doesn't make them a human being. OK question of definition and degree perhaps. In addition, in making the comparison with other animals ie that "we all want peace and security," he is eliding a fundamental fact of living on this planet, the fact that most species need to eat each other to survive. Hungry fish are not about to grant each other peace and security. Mr Zebra is not asking Mr Lion to eat grass. Mosquitoes will not leave me alone. That is the - literally - the 'nature' of this 'reality'. (It is not of course the only reality - I am loath on this forum to elaborate).
The human being shares many characteristics with computers (it is interesting to ponder the fact that computers may indeed be made 'in our image'). Computers have a 'body' and a 'brain' which runs programs. The brain has levels too, and there are fundamental programs eg aggression and hunger. In a computer such programs are called firmware (loosely - for any pedants who may be stressing). In a human we call them instincts. The extension then is that the personality is just this, a program. Who is the programmer ? This is more firmware: the theory is that the brain programs itself, based on experience - and guess what - we are developing computers which do just this. Consider also that we know that the brain can be re-programmed (sometimes called brainwashing), just as we know brain damage (indeed more basic physical damage) can cause personality change.
This does not mean that humans are not evolving to higher levels of consciousness. Some are, most are static and others are regressing. Logically (as it happens), it depends where you are starting from and the amount of effort (practice) you put in, where you get to. I guess that might be what is worrying you about these violent games. For me it seems most likely that someone who is younger (less experienced/programmed) or who is unstable/borderline psychopathic might be more affected by than a person who is more integrated/evolved. But it also depends on what other programming is going on. Some one growing up in Afghanistan is getting a whole different set of programs than someone growing up in the UK. I would agree with you also that someone like the Dalai Lama would be likely to consider such games to be counter to his desire to see more love and compassion in the world.
Nasty, brutish and slightly above average height
I agree. As I said though, I think it is interesting that we have evolved a degree of awareness where we have the choice to break free from those base desires...should we chose. With the ever expanding population we are already having to consider one of our most fundamental desires.Well, I am not going to argue with his Holiness
The human being shares many characteristics with computers (it is interesting to ponder the fact that computers may indeed be made 'in our image'). Computers have a 'body' and a 'brain' which runs programs. The brain has levels too, and there are fundamental programs eg aggression and hunger. In a computer such programs are called firmware (loosely - for any pedants who may be stressing). In a human we call them instincts. The extension then is that the personality is just this, a program. Who is the programmer ? This is more firmware: the theory is that the brain programs itself, based on experience - and guess what - we are developing computers which do just this. Consider also that we know that the brain can be re-programmed (sometimes called brainwashing), just as we know brain damage (indeed more basic physical damage) can cause personality change.
This does not mean that humans are not evolving to higher levels of consciousness. Some are, most are static and others are regressing. Logically (as it happens), it depends where you are starting from and the amount of effort (practice) you put in, where you get to. I guess that might be what is worrying you about these violent games. For me it seems most likely that someone who is younger (less experienced/programmed) or who is unstable/borderline psychopathic might be more affected by than a person who is more integrated/evolved. But it also depends on what other programming is going on. Some one growing up in Afghanistan is getting a whole different set of programs than someone growing up in the UK. I would agree with you also that someone like the Dalai Lama would be likely to consider such games to be counter to his desire to see more love and compassion in the world.
I don't think that any one school of philosophy, or any one persons description, is perfect, certainly not for every individual, but I think there is a key point in what he is saying that seems to ring true.
A lot of scholars say we are a product of our environment and our genetic make-up...those must be different for everybody. I think that, if there was a negative effect from violent games, given this diversity, it is entirely possible that some people would not be effected, and possibly even find some benefit.
Incidentally I brought the subject up earlier when talking to my sister. She said that there are certain games that her young son is not aloud to play any more. Not all violent I don't think, she said some just got him over exited.
She pointed out the similarity to drugs in that it is an escape from reality. Although I'm not sure that escaping reality is always a bad thing.
Anyway this has been really interesting and enlightening but my brain is now starting to hurt.
Pleasure talking. (Muscles always hurt when they are used, and get stronger
Nasty, brutish and slightly above average height
"Our instinctual nature, while extremely powerful in our decision-making processes, lifestyle choices, and orientation to day-to-day reality, is often given little emphasis in many spiritual paths, and the Instincts are often treated as an inherent problem, a distortion to be eliminated. This is understandable since this part of our nature is usually little interested in our spiritual or psychological development. Yet, without a clear and viable relationship with this aspect of our souls, it is extremely difficult to maintain an integrated approach to our path. The Enneagram deals very directly with this aspect of the Self through teachings about the Three Instincts: Self-Preservation, Sexual (Attraction), and Social (Adaptation)" http://www.metame.co.uk/Instincts_Workshop.htm
Nasty, brutish and slightly above average height
Okay, just throwing this out there, what about Rugby - that's aggression and cooperation.
Ultimately, look at this place - where there is confrontation people become less flexible and ideas remain fixed. Where people are focussed on outcomes collaborations occur and progress leads to discoveries. So I think conflict can be bad.
But is conflict all bad? Best trauma surgeons? Israel - because of war. I can't believe I'm going to quote Allanis Morrisette rather than my favourite Third Man quote but:
You live you learn
You love you learn
You cry you learn
You lose you learn
You bleed you learn
You scream you learn
The outcome of any action has a lot to do with the mind set of the people performing the action, as much as the appropriateness of the action. The instruction might be "reclaim territory from white farmers" it takes a certain kind of person to decide the most effective way of doing that is murder and rape. I don't think as a race we've got a handle on the "how" enough yet to start asking about the "why".
Anyway, back on topic.
Corroboration is great, we love music for the corroboration. Music without corroboration is generally crap; but conflict is also good - it drives evolution, it improves the gene-pool of the species making it hardier, more capable - it's only unfavourable when viewed from the unlucky individual's perspective.
With rugby, and I'm talking from a philosophical point of view, there is cooperation but only within groups. One group working together against other groups. Segregation. It doesn't take much imagination to see the connection with warring tribes.
I don't think war need be the best/only way to produce good trauma surgeons.
I'd say that if we could sort the "why" then the "how" would pretty much take care of it's self.
More capable of conflict?but conflict is also good - it drives evolution, it improves the gene-pool of the species making it hardier, more capable
Empathy?- it's only unfavourable when viewed from the unlucky individual's perspective.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote