chefranden Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Inside the Monkey Sphere. Your comments apreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Inside the Monkey Sphere. Your comments apreciated. Chefranden, thanks for the interesting article! Don't you think our monkeyspere is rapidly expanding via our 'global village' effect, brought on by television, mass transit, and worldwide computer/communication accessibility? Especially here in the US where we have exposure to all ethnic backgrounds. Perhaps we now could be additionally cultivating more of an inclusiveness of all the animals into our sphere too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted April 4, 2006 Author Share Posted April 4, 2006 Inside the Monkey Sphere. Your comments apreciated. Chefranden, thanks for the interesting article! Don't you think our monkeyspere is rapidly expanding via our 'global village' effect, brought on by television, mass transit, and worldwide computer/communication accessibility? Especially here in the US where we have exposure to all ethnic backgrounds. Perhaps we now could be additionally cultivating more of an inclusiveness of all the animals into our sphere too? No. I don't think it is expanding. It can't expand. It is tied to our physical structure. There is perhaps some possibity of evolving in that direction. I think the probablity of such an evolutionary directin is slim because we have removed oursevles from the evolution process as much as possible, and we don't practice breeding ourselves in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 No. I don't think it is expanding. It can't expand. It is tied to our physical structure. There is perhaps some possibity of evolving in that direction. I think the probablity of such an evolutionary directin is slim because we have removed oursevles from the evolution process as much as possible, and we don't practice breeding ourselves in that direction. I think you are correct in this on the species level Chef, but I wonder if it's possible for an individual to, with much effort and practice, expand this circle. In my mind, and I may be simplifying, such concepts as "interconnectedness", the golden rule and other systems like that are attempts to consciously expand this circle (w/varying degrees of success of course). It seems the core issue here is empathy. We are unable to extend the level of our empathy beyond a certain limit. And indeed, while I strive for such a state, I wonder if total empathy would actually be a good thing. How could anyone remain sane if they literally had the worries of the world on their shoulders? Great stuff Chef (as always!) IMOHO, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 No. I don't think it is expanding. It can't expand. It is tied to our physical structure. There is perhaps some possibity of evolving in that direction. I think the probablity of such an evolutionary directin is slim because we have removed oursevles from the evolution process as much as possible, and we don't practice breeding ourselves in that direction. I think you are correct in this on the species level Chef, but I wonder if it's possible for an individual to, with much effort and practice, expand this circle. In my mind, and I may be simplifying, such concepts as "interconnectedness", the golden rule and other systems like that are attempts to consciously expand this circle (w/varying degrees of success of course). It seems the core issue here is empathy. We are unable to extend the level of our empathy beyond a certain limit. And indeed, while I strive for such a state, I wonder if total empathy would actually be a good thing. How could anyone remain sane if they literally had the worries of the world on their shoulders? Great stuff Chef (as always!) IMOHO, I should think that there would be variations of capabilities within individuals. One could have a capacity of being in contact with 200 others and another may only be able to handle 50 others. With training one might be able to treat anyone one meets as if the stranger was a member of one's own sphere. Part of the training would have to be how to act if the stranger doesn't reciprocate. (I’m just guessing here) But I would have to guess that the stranger is not likely to become a real member of your sphere unless and until reciprocity was able to develop between the two of you. This kind of relationship requires physical proximity and time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 That was quite an amazing perspective. The number of social connections/perceptions limited by brain size? It sounds plausible. And raises many questions about cities, megachurches, sporting events and other en masse gatherings. For instance, how does mass media fit into this? Is the weirdness and instability of today's society partially caused by artificial connections (e.g. to a TV news anchor or sports celebrity) outside our normal "range"? And, is it possible to transcend this limitation (perhaps not physically but socially) by recognizing the problem and cultivating an attitude of universal compassion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitchu Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 I wonder how big a role the concept of The Enemy plays in our maintaining the distinction and singularity of our monkeysphere... in other words, of convincing ourselves that, since we don't seem able to do anything to expand the circle of our camaraderie, that our limitations of caring and compassion are warranted and necessary because The Enemy is just outside the boundary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I wonder how big a role the concept of The Enemy plays in our maintaining the distinction and singularity of our monkeysphere... in other words, of convincing ourselves that, since we don't seem able to do anything to expand the circle of our camaraderie, that our limitations of caring and compassion are warranted and necessary because The Enemy is just outside the boundary? I was wondering if we ALL had a common enemy... let's say, aliens from another planet, going to attack us and take over our world... would we then have more camaraderie with everyone else on the planet? Actually, when the 9/11 attacks happened in the US... I was pleasantly surprised at some of the leaders who offered their support in one way or another... like Kadaffi (spelling) of Libya and Castro of Cuba! Maybe, the closer mindset/connection we have to people, the more secure we feel... and the more relaxed we can be, therefore less work in our 'monkey sphere'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitchu Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Good observation, Amanda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedah Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I have read the article. I have meditated on the monkeysphere. I have ascended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I'm going to have to read it when I get home. That site is blocked. Unless you'd care to cut & paste the text here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted April 13, 2006 Author Share Posted April 13, 2006 I'm going to have to read it when I get home. That site is blocked. Unless you'd care to cut & paste the text here. I didn't because it is long. How long before you get to go home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 I'm going to have to read it when I get home. That site is blocked. Unless you'd care to cut & paste the text here. I didn't because it is long. How long before you get to go home? Well, I'm home now. Usually I'm home at about 5-ish central time. Okay, I read it. It's pretty good. Actually, as an aspiring writer, it is good to know that knowing more things about people builds empathy for them. Because you want your readers to empathize with your characters, even if you have a plot twist where the one they like the most turns out to be a murdering bastard or something. There is a lot of truth to that. It's easier to care about someone you know then a bunch of total strangers. However, it misses the fact that some people are extroverted and some are introverted, and how big your brain is really doesn't make a difference in your personality. Perhaps all people are capable of joining a certain number of large groups due to brain size, but not all people want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Oohg oohg oohg! Monkey boy like chef. Chef make food for monkey boy. Chef good, but still just food provider for monkey boy, not person. This is interesting. The implication is that hierarchies should probably be much less than the ~150 person maximum, which is what we tend to see in life. No level of a hierarchy tends to exceed ~20 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedah Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 I Just realised that this can be used in an argument with a christian who uses the classic fundie logic "People of other faiths are being whispered to by demons !" . When a christian brings up the classic "free will" argument, slap them with the monkeysphere . Its easy to say that buddhists way off in Asian countries are being controlled by satan isnt it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts