Been contemplating for a while aspects of the human social instincts (mechanisms, computation devices and activities of, application etc), specifically of the territory where such activity influences perception and conception of physics and physical forces (adversely maybe).

I’m considering that social forces, like common ways individuals, loosely say acting within or of or for groups, making for social forces acting on social minds say, whether social forces ‘borrow’ from physical forces.

More precisely exploring the territory where social forces get more power and influence, get some legitimacy say, by incorporating the more solid realities of physics and forced of nature into the mechanisms that generate social reality/ies.

That somehow the computation for social and psychological thinking, or perhaps in more generalized terms – that which tends social receptivity – that such influences involve non-direct physical connections, given the need for individuals to have operating space and freedom from being unduly imposed on/upon, that the social field is ‘creative’ regards the relationship between physical reality and social reality.

That part of physics (the perceptual and conceptual apparatus) may be ‘consumed’ in a sense by the work or effort of social constructions. Point being that social compliance may have the importance of social expectations operating ahead of physical forces as a determinant of reality.

The joy of most physics is its reality independent of human thoughts and language. Of course much of what humans do is to some extent thought and spoken and acted into reality, importantly, made so this way. But much or even most physics passively exists with no human effort whatsoever. Even what we do make or build or construct persists afterward largely courtesy of reliable consistent physics (physical forces etc).

I wonder if being socialized for ‘human purposes’ tends with many of its ‘subjects’ to prioritize down and make physical forces a subordinate ‘backdrop’ that is creatively incorporated, usurped even (not a word I’d usually use) for social objectives, by those with more social power.

This is to do with the extent social reality is based in or of physical forces (which involve material reality).

The connection of the human mind and body-vehicle to physical forces is quite intimate, pervasive, inescapable, and we automatically own the energy conveyed by occupying the space we do. We ‘own’ the kinetic energy for example at any moment of any part of our body. We own our mass that is tended downward by gravity, so we ‘own’ the actions of gravity on our mass. We own the inter/action at least within our body. Then there’s the direction or trajectory of our bodies through space, which we ‘own’ in an important way too.

To what extent does an individual own the kinetic energy of their body, various parts as moving relative to other parts and that external, and to what extent does a person ‘own’ the gravity acting on their body mass?

……more solid realities of physics and forced of nature into the mechanisms that generate social reality/ies.

Should read …forces of nature….

pretty much purple monkey dishwater

You own your body (and therefore the energy associated with it) although the government has the authority to impound it in various circumstances.

Bubblecar said:

You own your body (and therefore the energy associated with it) although the government has the authority to impound it in various circumstances.

And prevent you from scrapping it when you have finished with it!

Like when are people to be held responsible for their farts?

>Like when are people to be held responsible for their farts?

Just ate near KG of grapes earlier, the dog seemed to enjoy being in the same room s me, our relationship had a new dimension about it, but to save my marriage just had to get the vap cooler going for a while.

Thought you’d enjoy that story.

Point was socialization is very much about ‘configuring’ the relational-apprehension of the social creature with the material world, which is in-large-part done through or courtesy of non-material physical forces. Extending in a sense to the electro-chemical activity of minds, the neural activity, which wouldn’t have evolved and exist without the physics lesson, geometry lesson, and math lesson (entertain nature as ‘teacher’ for a moment) not only of an individuals’ lifetime, but of ancestors going back in time – evolution, the biohistory, which includes social enviornments of past that were an important aspect of selection pressures.

So the body-vehicle has a evolutionary history with the physics of the world.

To some extent the ‘trajectory’ or trajectories of modern socialization might be seen as somewhat a ‘holiday’ from some of the realities of the physics of the world, bit of a leg up for specialization, but more generally being insulated from the forces of nature (the wild, uncertain aspects) helps with all this.

The promise of such a trajectory with its benefits is a creative endeavour that could be loosely associated with ‘progress’, which I think often involves the reshaping of more basic desires into more complex instrumental desires (you know like I want the holiday to Europe, don’t like my job much but have to work to earn the money to do the trip).

Maybe an avenue into this is the question of if modern man is developing or has tended toward something of an ‘indoors reality’.

And if you fall far enough outside acceptable socialisation you might be denied access to ‘indoors reality’ altogether, and afforded a more ‘complete’ experience of unmediated nature than you would prefer.

what you ‘own’ of physical forces acting inside you

weak force
strong force
gravitational force
electromagnetic force

yes these forces are acting inside of you + atmospheric pressure

fixed

>And if you fall far enough outside acceptable socialisation you might be denied access to ‘indoors reality’ altogether, and afforded a more ‘complete’ experience of unmediated nature than you would prefer.

I was considering more the mundane, like for example consider the years with mum and dad and all leading up to preschool, then preschool then primary and seconday, just as a working example here.

Imagine for a moment the emphasis of socialization were more physics based, right of the bat. Not too strict or formalized, just generally a bit of a shift of the ‘force of it’.

We might make some assumptions that socialization has about it some ‘efficiencies’ that serve culture, serve the status quo and progress. All good.

Some of peoples receptivity to ideology would be shaped early in life, perhaps much is, I can’t be sure. There’s nothing wrong with being receptive to ideology, group values, shared and agreed social customs, norms, agreed objectives, ones participation in societal objectives and the like. Much of the conventions of free democratic societies, in which case education is valued and provided, and people arrive at how they participate informed-like, part of the ideology may be critical consideration of ideological influences, limiting the power of even, which I think is the case.

It could be that I’m exploring a cognitive hole in my own conceptual apparatus here is all.

Still I think there some territory of ideology that exploits a type of easy-think, or the easy-think I suppose is an expression of a tendency toward easy-think, and the apparatus patronizes it, so maybe people, many people, some people, are inclined to inhabit (mentally) some ideologically suspended world of ideological easy-think. Both ‘pillow’ and ‘barrier’, of which traversal and emergence out ‘the other side’ requires work and pain, beyond habit and notion. Not sure, but will keep with ‘indoors reality’ to word whatever for the moment.

It does strike me that it possible to internalize a lot of cultural stuff but that some basic physics (knowledge of physical forces) regards the workings of the body-mind-vehicle within the world might not advance commensurately.

I am wondering if ‘consciousness’, all that contributes to processing of the social field in more general terms, that ‘supercharging’ this to serve some cultural trajectory may, at times, ‘borrow’ from some physical relational aspects of, and of the milieu intérieur with the external environment.

I suppose what I’m getting at is the faculties applied to perceiving and conceptualizing matters of the social field may borrow from some physical realities of and projecting something of the milieu intérieur (maintenance of internal environment in broadest possible terms).

I think homeostasis, or homeostatic mechanisms are more grounded in physical forces than perhaps they tend ‘a feel for’, not one that’d incline a ‘look inside’ so much anyway.

Not that I think there any great modern problem distortions of this. I do wonder of the growing world population, the growing indoors reality, like some armchair perspective on the world, and human culture emerging as a ‘force of nature’ from this largely indoors reality.

transition said:

This is to do with the extent social reality is based in or of physical forces (which involve material reality).

The connection of the human mind and body-vehicle to physical forces is quite intimate, pervasive, inescapable, and we automatically own the energy conveyed by occupying the space we do. We ‘own’ the kinetic energy for example at any moment of any part of our body. We own our mass that is tended downward by gravity, so we ‘own’ the actions of gravity on our mass. We own the inter/action at least within our body. Then there’s the direction or trajectory of our bodies through space, which we ‘own’ in an important way too.

To what extent does an individual own the kinetic energy of their body, various parts as moving relative to other parts and that external, and to what extent does a person ‘own’ the gravity acting on their body mass?

I’m going to agree with this.

> To what extent does a person ‘own’ … the body-vehicle physical forces.

I’m going to say: to the extent that we can sense them. Social interaction is all about sensation. Without sensation there is no social interaction. The physics of a body, such as the effect of gravity in individual body parts, affects social interaction. The social interaction affects some of the physics – trajectory, heat, sound, vibration. Many of these physics-social interactions are two-way, but some are one way.The main one-way interaction is mass-weight. Any brief social interaction is not going to affect out mass-weight. Long-term social interactions will affect our mass-weight, through such actions as dressing and undressing, eating and drinking, sweating through physical exertion or fear, urination and defecation. But all of these only have a small overall influence on our mass-weight, and this is the extent that a person can be said to own their mass-weight-inertia. The gravity generated by our body is too small to even measure, hence too small to sense and can therefore not be claimed to be owned in a social sense.

>The main one-way interaction is mass-weight

Dunno about this one. How do you mean? What about when you jump out of a aeroplane and accelerate to terminal velocity?

CrazyNeutrino said:

what you ‘own’ of physical forces acting inside you

weak force
strong force
gravitational force
electromagnetic force

yes these forces are acting inside of you + atmospheric pressure

You forgot The Force, it’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.

transition said:

>The main one-way interaction is mass-weight

Dunno about this one. How do you mean? What about when you jump out of a aeroplane and accelerate to terminal velocity?

then you will feel “the force”

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

>The main one-way interaction is mass-weight

Dunno about this one. How do you mean? What about when you jump out of a aeroplane and accelerate to terminal velocity?

then you will feel “the force”

I fell out of an aeroplane a week or so ago and all I felt was a retired British SAS guy squashed hard into my buttocks. Usually this is something that I would not enjoy, but as I was rushing towards the grounds at 200km/h it felt strangely reassuring.

>I fell out of an aeroplane a week or so ago and all I felt was a retired British SAS guy squashed hard into my buttocks. Usually this is something that I would not enjoy, but as I was rushing towards the grounds at 200km/h it felt strangely reassuring.

Yes, as you say you usually wouldn’t, but did. Glad you had that moment, real or fantasy.

I’m more into verestrial taginas moving at somewhat less that verminal telocity.

>I’m going to say: to the extent that we can sense them. Social interaction is all about sensation. Without sensation there is no social interaction

Would have thought a lot of social interaction involved ‘limiting’ whatever affect, which ‘sensation’ be an aspect.

Can no response be a response?

transition said:

>And if you fall far enough outside acceptable socialisation you might be denied access to ‘indoors reality’ altogether, and afforded a more ‘complete’ experience of unmediated nature than you would prefer.

I was considering more the mundane, like for example consider the years with mum and dad and all leading up to preschool, then preschool then primary and seconday, just as a working example here.

Imagine for a moment the emphasis of socialization were more physics based, right of the bat. Not too strict or formalized, just generally a bit of a shift of the ‘force of it’.

We might make some assumptions that socialization has about it some ‘efficiencies’ that serve culture, serve the status quo and progress. All good.

Some of peoples receptivity to ideology would be shaped early in life, perhaps much is, I can’t be sure. There’s nothing wrong with being receptive to ideology, group values, shared and agreed social customs, norms, agreed objectives, ones participation in societal objectives and the like. Much of the conventions of free democratic societies, in which case education is valued and provided, and people arrive at how they participate informed-like, part of the ideology may be critical consideration of ideological influences, limiting the power of even, which I think is the case.

It could be that I’m exploring a cognitive hole in my own conceptual apparatus here is all.

Still I think there some territory of ideology that exploits a type of easy-think, or the easy-think I suppose is an expression of a tendency toward easy-think, and the apparatus patronizes it, so maybe people, many people, some people, are inclined to inhabit (mentally) some ideologically suspended world of ideological easy-think. Both ‘pillow’ and ‘barrier’, of which traversal and emergence out ‘the other side’ requires work and pain, beyond habit and notion. Not sure, but will keep with ‘indoors reality’ to word whatever for the moment.

It does strike me that it possible to internalize a lot of cultural stuff but that some basic physics (knowledge of physical forces) regards the workings of the body-mind-vehicle within the world might not advance commensurately.

I am wondering if ‘consciousness’, all that contributes to processing of the social field in more general terms, that ‘supercharging’ this to serve some cultural trajectory may, at times, ‘borrow’ from some physical relational aspects of, and of the milieu intérieur with the external environment.

I suppose what I’m getting at is the faculties applied to perceiving and conceptualizing matters of the social field may borrow from some physical realities of and projecting something of the milieu intérieur (maintenance of internal environment in broadest possible terms).

I think homeostasis, or homeostatic mechanisms are more grounded in physical forces than perhaps they tend ‘a feel for’, not one that’d incline a ‘look inside’ so much anyway.

Not that I think there any great modern problem distortions of this. I do wonder of the growing world population, the growing indoors reality, like some armchair perspective on the world, and human culture emerging as a ‘force of nature’ from this largely indoors reality.

Well I think I’m in broad agreement with that, but to be honest I can’t really grasp the central thesis on this thread.

>Well I think I’m in broad agreement with that, but to be honest I can’t really grasp the central thesis on this thread”

Yes, no conclusional objective intended.