Imagine all your reflectivity about human receptivity to culture was contained, or limited (constrained perhaps) by the ideas in your environment, and the ideas tended you to focus on just your lifetime, and near lifetimes of others (including recent ancestors).

It’s probably an abuse of English, anyway i’ll rave calling it an ontogenic view. Let’s say you are fairly much just your biological expression for your lifetime. I mean what else can you be? You aren’t something previous, all there has been is the continuity of now/s since born, or since conception.

The past has gone, it isn’t here now, surely, and certainly you must be somewhat detached from the past that preceded your conception.

Back to the receptivity to culture.

Is there any way to explain that receptivity by way of study and focus on just the lifetimes of organisms. Doubtful, yet the power of immediate environments (contemporary environments) can be amplified by constraining or limiting the view. In fact the native mind tools may have an interest in just that. It’s an investment.

There is of course the possibility native mind tools, and expressed in culture too, have mechanisms to limit over-receptivity to culture. ways of optimizing it, because open-ended receptivity, simply more of it can’t be better, or always better.

Does an ontogenic (as I call it) limited view incline selfishness and narcissism?

I mean a culture can encourage receptivity, increase the immediate forces working on or with that receptivity, and disproportionately load the understanding of it toward explanations limited to the lifetime of the organism.

> Imagine all your reflectivity about human receptivity to culture was contained, or limited (constrained perhaps) by the ideas in your environment, and the ideas tended you to focus on just your lifetime, and near lifetimes of others (including recent ancestors).

I need clarification on “environment” in this context.

Let me split “environment” into three components:
1. The environment of ideas – ideas transmitted to you by others, for example by your parents or the web.
2. The environment of your senses – direct observations and ideas of self unaffected by the ideas of others.
3. Case 2 as modified by Case 1.

Do you mean Life history theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory

Where do the heathens come in to it, at the end?

Just to give PWM nightmares

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdUevEAcKsM

Life History Evolution

A female North Pacific Giant Octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini) lives three to four years; it lays thousands of eggs in a single bout and then dies. By contrast, a mature Coast Redwood Tree (Sequoia sempervirens) lives for many hundreds of years and produces millions of seeds each year (Figure 1). As these two examples illustrate, organisms differ dramatically in how they develop, the time they take to grow, when they become mature, how many offspring of a particular size they produce, and how long they live. Together, the age-, size-, or stage-specific patterns of development, growth, maturation, reproduction, survival, and lifespan define an organism’s life cycle, its life history.

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Do you mean Life history theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory

Where do the heathens come in to it, at the end?

The proposition was that explanations that tend to be confined to (and confining regards) considerations of just the lifetime of an organism aren’t much better than religion, of the latter that God created the heavens, earth, animal life and humans quite recently. And of the former, explanations that focus on just the lifetime of organisms, the ontogeny if you will.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Do you mean Life history theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory

Where do the heathens come in to it, at the end?

The proposition was that explanations that tend to be confined to (and confining regards) considerations of just the lifetime of an organism aren’t much better than religion, of the latter that God created the heavens, earth, animal life and humans quite recently. And of the former, explanations that focus on just the lifetime of organisms, the ontogeny if you will.

I’m not convinced.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Do you mean Life history theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory

Where do the heathens come in to it, at the end?

The proposition was that explanations that tend to be confined to (and confining regards) considerations of just the lifetime of an organism aren’t much better than religion, of the latter that God created the heavens, earth, animal life and humans quite recently. And of the former, explanations that focus on just the lifetime of organisms, the ontogeny if you will.

I’m not convinced.

nor am I, it’s a potential departure from weather talk, or worse politics, a distraction

> The proposition was that explanations that tend to be confined to (and confining regards) considerations of just the lifetime of an organism aren’t much better than religion.

Oh, that.

As in “as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”

But in science, a lot of things seem to be constant over much longer timescales than the lifetime of an organism. So a brief observation of say, the Moon’s orbit, over just a couple of months, suffices for a very long period of time.