well, the situation now, for us people in this imaginary place called America.
Is that our collective self in this America are seeing and 'treating the symptoms' and not necessary going for the 'cure'. Not to say grossly that Americans' are misconceptualizing the symptoms with the cure.
This is what Bloom may kindof been referring too. When people are happy with tangible success such as a job which provides an income to supply the external life support system necessary to life;
That that life support system may well then be the end in itself and where the American Mind then closes. They may rest contented that their beliefes are systematically met by for instance by the commercial world.
But, Bloom may also be criticising Americans in their closing mind that they may not adventure to craft a 'cure' which would engage themselves more meaningfully or fully during their passage and passing of life in America.
I am not sure that Americans are closing their minds. Perhaps they have an inkling of what it will take as far as a cure is concerned and can't face that. While it seems that the majority of Americans are boobs, this is not entirely true, it takes time to get them to face facts and give up the fairy tale. While people are "happy with tangible success such as a job which provides an income to supply the external life support system necessary to life", the majority will come to the realization that is not enough. Granted some will seek more and more material wealth/possesions - even they will realize that there is more than material gratification. I don't think that "the Americans Mind closes and may park". We are a country that has never been one to say this is good enough - lets stop. Guess I am an advocate for hope. After all if there is no hope we might as well commit suicide. It will take at first a few bold people to start to change the "status quo" perhaps not that few.
Hyper-Specialization, Insularity, and Narrowness of Vision The economic pressures have also turned into intellectual pressures. When humans feel panicked, we tend to become more conservative and risk-averse — we go with the sure thing, rather than the gamble. The problem is that creativity is all about exploratory risk. The goal is to find new things — to go beyond state-of-the-art and to discover or create things that the world has never seen. It’s a contradiction to simultaneously forge into the unknown and to insist on a sure bet.
Traditionally, in the US, universities have provided a safe home for that kind of exploration, and federal, state, and corporate funding have supported it. (Incidentally, buying advanced research far cheaper than it would be to do it in either industry or government, and insulating those entities from the risk.) The combination has yielded amazing dividends, paying off at many, many times the level of investment.
In the current climate, however, all of these entities, as well as scientists themselves, are leaning away from exploratory research and insisting on those sure bets. Most resources go to ideas and techniques (and researchers) that have proven profitable in the past, while it’s harder and harder to get ideas outside the mainstream either accepted by peer review, supported by the university, or funded by granting agencies. The result is increasingly narrow vision in a variety of scientific fields and an intolerance of creative exploration. (My colleague Kiri Wagstaff, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, has written an excellent analysis of one facet of this problem within our own field of Machine Learning.)
has feminsim run amok or was it always a bad idea or where should feminism go next?
Feminism and the Disposable Male
The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex (Simon and Schuster, 1st Ed., 1993; 2nd Ed., Berkely, 2000) is an internationally best-selling book by Warren Farrell. In the book, Farrell argues that the widespread perception of men having inordinate social and economic power is false, and that men are actually systematically disadvantaged in many ways.
Despite Farrell's background as the only male elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women's New York City chapter, and a teacher of women's studies, The Myth of Male Power is considered to be a classic in the discipline of men's studies.
"Why Men are the Disposable Sex"
The subtitle of The Myth of Male Power is "Why Men are the Disposable Sex." This is a key tenet of Farrell’s philosophy. Historically, he says, both sexes were disposable in the service of survival: women risked death in childbirth; men risked death in war. However, Farrell notes, there is a key difference: women's disposability emanated more from biology; men's required socialization.
Farrell asks, "how does a society get its sons to compete to die?" Farrell's thesis about socialization for male disposability is that virtually every society that survived did so by training a cadre of its sons to be disposable—for example, in war and in work (coal miners; firefighters).
Successful socialization required rewarding boys with social "bribes of approval." These bribes included being labeled "hero," giving them promotions and "Purple Hearts" for risking their lives, and the love of women. This love leads to children, who are then socialized by parents who reinforce the cycle.
The Myth of Male Power proposes that, because death is not particularly healthy, this cycle creates a "paradox of masculinity": what it has taken to create a society that is healthy creates boys and men who are unhealthy.
Perhaps Farrell's most controversial contribution to gender politics is The Myth of Male Power's confrontation of the belief that patriarchal societies make rules to benefit men at the expense of women. Farrell cites hundreds of examples to the contrary, such as male-only draft registration not benefiting men at the expense of women; or men constituting 93% of workplace deaths; or being expected to risk sexual rejection, pay on dates, and buy women diamonds. Once married, rules made by men are more likely to lead to men losing children and their home after divorce--what he cites as another example of male disposability. Farrell contends that nothing is more telling about who has benefited from "men's rules" than life expectancy and suicide rates--and men lose in both of these categories.
In another study, the researchers found that children only enforce game norms on members of their own cultural in-group - for example, people who speak the same language. These results suggest that children understand that "our group" falls within the scope of the norm and can be expected to respect it. Research also shows that children don't need explicit teaching from adults to see an action as following a social norm; they only need to see that adults expect things to work a certain way.
So, similarly, a behavior would be normalized against a 'bobo' if the adult punished or not punished after the modeling of the social behavior to the 'bobo' doll.
This 'bobo' doll behavior may be applied endlessly to various in-group 'bobo' dolls. And, what behavior may be done to various out-group 'bobo' doll's.
May an out-group punish our children or may only certain people in an in-group people may punish our children.
Those who control the punishment control the social normalization of society, apparently.
Have only listened to first few minutes of interesting Feminism and the Disposable Male video linked by Terry http://www.youtube.co..., but want to respond some:
Women are inherently respected/appreciated for their child-bearing/raising and sexual possibilities. That's NOT the kind of respect modern women desire I contend. Do not LIMIT them to those functions in your view or in their opportunities. They would like to be given credit for their OTHER offerings and gifts, just as others are. Recognize them as people too! Only 1-4% of our genes are sex-linked. Otherwise we have the same talents and intelligence as men.
The difference then? Besides social conditioning, it would likely much be hormonal. Testosterone imparts FAR greater drive to succeed, be competitive, produce. Females are more strongly geared to cooperate and nurture. Their pride is less likely to come from outshining others, moreso from helping others.
So women overall ARE less likely to push themselves and make as full a use of the plentiful abilities they were genetically endowed with and share with men. Their hormonal gift though gives the world their own equally valuable, but different, contributions. It has more to do with matters of the heart. We are the "heart of the world." We care. We listen (when need be!). We have a gentleness men can usually not muster or coordinate, that is sometimes just as important as their strength. We give and sacrifice of ourselves intensely, but differently, perhaps being more directly supportive? And despite our generally lesser amounts of physical strength and a more passive nature, we become amazing tigers when it comes to protecting our children or family. So while we are different, it is MUCH less than people act like or commonly think it is, similar to how people are finally recognizing that racial and national differences are not such a big deal anymore, though I do not have the data to compare those genetic differences, as separate from cultural ones. As to men putting women on a pedestal, I only want to be treated nicely like you would anyone else, lovingly based on your feelings for me, and with assistance only if I personally actually need it. Treating me differently automatically for being female MAKES ME FEEL YOU CONSIDER ME HELPLESS. It makes a woman seem to merely be a temporarily loose reproductive appendage, not a complete human being - of less value. Do we tend to be weaker physically generally? Yes, but probably closer to a 12-year-old boy, who is treated rather independently or as an apprentice, rather than the young child that women tend to be treated as, even when people mean well. Importantly, DO NOT STEREOTYPE us. We embody the full range of human diversity.
Women offer the needed balancing factor to men's more aggressive nature that the world, communities, and families need. Our voice can end much child abuse, solve many social problems, and make solid diplomacy and peace come to this world finally. So step back a little and welcome us ALL in! We're on the way, regardless! We'll ALL go further, together. Let's go, now!
James W. Prescott (born c. 1930) is an American developmental psychologist, whose research focused on the origins of violence, particularly as it relates to a lack of mother-child bonding.
Prescott was a health scientist administrator at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), one of the Institutes of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) from 1966 to 1980. He created and directed the Developmental Behavioral Biology Program at the NICHD where he initiated NICHD-supported research programs to study the relationship between mother-child bonding and the development of social abilities in adult life. Inspired by Harry Harlow's famous experiments on rhesus monkeys, which established a link between neurotic behavior and isolation from a care-giving mother, Prescott further proposed that a key component to development comes from the somesthetic processes (body touch) and vestibular-cerebellar processes (body movement) induced by mother-child interactions, and that deprivation of this stimulation causes brain abnormalities. By analogy to the neurotic behavior in monkeys, he suggested that these developmental abnormalities are a major cause of adult violence amongst humans.
Prescott also served as assistant head of the Psychology Branch of the Office of Naval Research (1963 to 1966) and as president of the Maryland Psychological Association (1970 to 1971).
BODY PLEASURE AND THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE
BODY PLEASURE AND THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE A neuropsychologist contends that the greatest threat to world peace comes from those nations which have the most depriving environments for their children and which are most repressive of sexual affection and female sexuality.
James W. Prescott Human violence is fast becoming a global epidemic.
All over the world, police face angry mobs, terrorists disrupt the Olympics, hijackers seize airplanes, and bombs wreck buildings.
During the past year, wars raged in the Middle East, Cyprus, and Southeast Asia, and guerrilla fighting continued to escalate in Ireland.
Meanwhile, crime in the United States grew even faster than inflation. Figures from the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that serious crimes rose 16 percent in the first six months of 1974—one of the largest crime increases since FBI record-keeping began.
Unless the causes of violence are isolated and treated, we will continue to live in a world of fear and apprehension.
Unfortunately, violence is often offered as a solution to violence.
Many law enforcement officials advocate 'get tough' policies as the best method to reduce crime.
Imprisoning people, our usual way of dealing with crime, will not solve the problem, because the causes of violence lie in our basic values and the way in which we bring up our children and youth.
Physical punishment, violent films and TV programs teach our children that physical violence is normal.
But these early life experiences are not the only or even the main source of violent behavior.
Recent research supports the point of view that the deprivation of physical pleasure is a major ingredient in the expression of physical violence. The common as-sociation of sex with violence provides a clue to understanding physical violence in terms of deprivation of physical pleasure.
Unlike violence, pleasure seems to be something the world can't get enough of. People are constantly in search of new forms of pleasure, yet most of our 'pleasure' activities appear to be substitutes for the natural sensory pleasures of touching. We touch for pleasure or for pain or we don't touch at all. Although physical pleasure and physical violence seem worlds apart, there seems to be a subtle and intimate connection between the two. Until the relationship between pleasure and violence is understood, violence will continue to escalate.
As a developmental neuropsychologist I have devoted a great deal of study to the peculiar relationship between violence and pleasure. I am now convinced that the deprivation of physical sensory pleasure is the principal root cause of violence. Laboratory experiments with animals show that pleasure and violence have a reciprocal relationship, that is, the presence of one inhibits the other. A raging, violent animal will abruptly calm down when electrodes stimulate the pleasure centers of its brain. Likewise, stimulating the violence centers in the brain can terminate the animal's sensual pleasure and peaceful behavior. When the brain's pleasure circuits are 'on,' the violence circuits are 'off,' and vice versa. Among human beings, a pleasure-prone personality rarely displays violence or aggressive behaviors, and a violent personality has little ability to tolerate, experience, or enjoy sensuously pleasing activities. As either violence or pleasure goes up, the other goes down.
Video immediately above, http://www.youtube.co... is very interesting, saying that during development especially, movement is important,like we had heard touch is. So, a parent carrying child around, holding them, and interacting with them, and maybe the stimulation of encountering new scenes, is essential for healthy young. I agree that prisons should rehabilitate, not corrupt people further. Anger is interesting, powerful phenomenon.
All of us have some sort of "philosophy of life," even though we may not have verbalized it. Here you can get ideas for your own philosophy of life. You can see what others think of your own philosophical ideas, and you can help others to become clearer in their own thinking.
When there is difference of opinion, we have an opportunity for "friendly debate," a very growth-promoting experience.