Embrace your inner Savage

Civility is a mere facade, indoctrinated within us from birth. Social conditioning has directed people to civility that we have today, but could we as a species taken a different route? Perhaps, but would it have been “better”? The imagination is a powerful thing and I suspect that a rather successful implementation of imagination – in the ideological push of civility – has many wonderful aspirations to offer. However, it does have its extremes. We can often end up forgetting who or what we are, animals. We, human beings, are classified as animals under Kingdom Animalia, yet many of us have chosen to subjectively distance ourselves from every other animal, by definition even, as provided by Merriam Webster.

1an·i·mal
: a living thing that is not a human being or plant
: any living thing that is not a plant
: a person who behaves in a wild, aggressive, or unpleasant way

I like the third sense of the word, a person who behaves in a wild, aggressive, or unpleasant way. When push comes to shove, we may all just go back to being this type of animal. After all, most of us have the innate will to survive, as is common in animals. If aggressiveness is required for us to survive or at least protect our conception of life, our values, our way of life, we do have the capability to lift the shroud of civility that camouflage us, to revert back to our more animal roots.

We react based upon our biological make up and environmental conditioning, just as all animals do. Sure, we have some major advantages over the rest of Kingdom Animalia but are we to distance ourselves so much to consider ourselves so special that we are beyond animals now?

I credit the extreme notions of this ideology of civility to have its roots in various forms of political correctness, cultural constructs, the conceptions of people. It is often that any of us can be disillusioned about anything and I’ve noticed in some various politically correct stances that we can weave a web of twisted logic that pushes the envelope of our perception to a disillusioned frame of reference. The simple categorization that places us as not animals, for instance. It seems this occurred, well, just because “we” can. Perhaps because we were believed to be “made in God’s image”. Because we are an apex predator and our transcendence over the rest of kingdom animalia is prevalent. We have essentially “terraformed” if you will, the very planet that gave birth to us, which has led to our further distancing from our animal roots. We humans have constructed a world that seems unnatural, perhaps it makes us seem unnatural in ourselves. We have constructed laws, conceptions, rules, order, regulation, laws that may seem unnatural. Of course, “we” is being applied here very liberally. A lot of this is of what we are born into is the result of some people, probably a minority, that have shaped the social constructs, influencing humanity through their power, which through charisma, reason, logic, people agree to, submit to, or just apathetically conform to.

Today we see extremes in various forms of political activism; political correctness in all its forms; Everyone should be seen as “equal”, everyone should be able to sexually identify how they wish, certain clothing is required for certain occasions, some of these are practical, some are pipe dreams; superfluous goals that will never be obtained. There is the paradoxical push for racial equality, or even the dissemination of race altogether, which ends up segregating the races in turn and hurts its own cause. Pointing out that “black people” are well black, and white people are white, in order to achieve equality, such as “another white cop killed a black 18 year old man”, seems self defeating in this push. Sure there may be injustices here and yes may be the root cause, but doesn’t that just sharpen the schism with a polarizing effect? Trading some small victory while creating a larger war in the end.

Censorship, for example, while having it has its practicality and legitimate uses, can be troublesome. There is a fine line that we must not damage, our freedom to express ourselves. These all seems methods of control to subvert the natural ways some people are of course. To deny some aspects our “savagery” on these levels can lead to systematic corruption of power, authority, resulting in a slippery slope of self defeat.

Authority will always need a reminder that the unjust facade of civility ought to be transparent to the people and governmental savagery should be apparent to those that must obey their will, regardless of the efforts of propaganda. We should not necessarily expect more from the epitome of human civility; systems, governments, corporations, cultures. Understand that these systems, these constructs that we have created ourselves, operate with savagery and animalistic tendencies. Without doing so, we may only set us up for failure. When we lose track of what we are and who we are, we fool only ourselves. We should be vigilant in our ideologies to understand what we can do and maybe more importantly, what we cannot do. We cannot get ahead of ourselves, we cannot get ahead of our animal selves. This somewhat ties in with going with what we know, and more importantly knowing at times that we do not know. But if we are disillusioned as civilized human beings, are we in this world, the structures of authority really operating as civilized human beings, or are we really operating as the apex predator, or animal that we are? Remember, when push comes to shove, civility will crumble. Can we push the authorities to crumble? Of course, we can. Expose the inner animal, the animal drives, that might be masked with logic and reason, but underneath it all, might be something else.

To be prepared let us embrace our inner savage, or our inner animal. See it in ourselves as to forget our inner savage is to forget what we are, so we can see it in others, as to not forget who “they” are. Society is yet to work out its kinks and may never; We are very flawed humans. Civility certainly has its place and is particularly useful in how we treat others, so of course, lets not go overboard and start eating each other.

Now if you have made it this far, perhaps I can welcome you to some aspects of the human condition that portray just what kind of animal we humans are. The capability to produce abstract thoughts that result in the notion of civility, that we all play along, or abide with. (At least most of us). The human condition though is one in which has very animalistic tendencies, which if believe we are civilized human beings made in God’s image, perhaps we will forget the capability of humans. We are for the most part, bottomless pits. Black holes that will always want more. When we have more, we’ll want something else. It’s in our nature, which is not within our control. Our biological make up has caused us to be able to want, to live, to think. Other animals have other drives, dependent upon their biological make up. Some people become killers, they lie, they have all sorts of issues that civility pushes below the depths of our perception, hiding and lurking withe facade of civility to camouflage them. There are murderers, rapists, thieves, walking out there among us, who look just as civilized as everyone else. Civility, perhaps rules, order, laws and governmental authority has masked their savagery. They all play the game, just like everyone else. But in each and every one of us, lurks something else.

Is being an animal always bad? Of course not. Many non human animals are probably capable of loving or caring just as we are. Just don’t let the facade of civility fool you into thinking everything is just fine and dandy with these human beings that walk the earth. So embrace your inner savage, for it will give you insight into the rest of society. Knowing this within may help you know others. Your primal drives, fears, desires. These don’t necessarily come from our environment, it may primarily come from our genetic make up, which remember, is a genetic make up that is the most dominant species of life on this planet that has conquered the food chain and for many if not most, the most desirable conquest is of those of the same species.

If civility were a mere facade; which I’m not saying that it isn’t in most people in the modern age; where did it stem from originally and just the same as it being a facade in most individuals, mightn’y it be an actuality beyond being just a facade in some and that is why it has made its way through so much of human history spread along so long of a historical linear timeline that we must consider in its length of time given how slowly just 80-120 years ticks by; fast at the same time; as we live out our lives; of the past 250 thousand years that we might estimate of human existence.

The savage is nothing without civility. Civility is nothing without the savage. We need both, individual by individual, but not always; just in the modern age. There are times of peace where civility would be better suited. Times of war or poverty where the savage is needed once again to procure food and stability.

So called savages were (and are) often incredibly civil. And I don’t simply mean they were nice when they were in good moods, but rather could have all sorts of everyday to special occasion ritualized interactions, many of which were genteel. They just had a broader range than modern ‘civilized’ humans who in the main are savage by proxy or when cornered - but are not very good at it when cornered.

Civility has never existed. Savagery is the ongoing historical norm and there is nothing good about human nature.

I think the human intellect needs both sides of a dichotomy or opposites, where any and all duality has to be represented such that we can weigh situations up. Because the world presents us with the real world, from young the intellect has to take account for advisity. You could have an intellect of pure reason and information like in a robot/AI, but it would need info about the worlds adversities so it doesn’t go walking over cliffs and what have you.

We and animals aren’t ‘animals’, in that there is no such thing as ‘animal’ [no?].we apply what mental faculties we have to the world, and mostly that means surviving i.e. against adversities.

consciousness does not contain ‘animal’, as animal is the net result as perceived by the observer. animals probably think we are all the same thing.

Duality of morality or ethics is merely illusion, just another facade and pretension.

To me this makes no sense, though I likely agree with what you actually mean. Civility exists, and more so in some cultures and subcultures than others. I think what you mean is that form does not match content. That civil people are not really, underneath, behind closed doors, via proxies armies and police, in secret civil, they are savage. Sure. What I was objecting to was this portrait of pagans and indigenous people or people not in civilizations as alwasy seething with passion, violently peforming every action, never engaging in ceremonious restraint or being polite or organized or in a ritual fashion, if in an everyday ritual - like taking a pipe from someone or sharing a specific special food. If I read this thread I get this impression that non-civlized people were always berserk, leaping on the nearest pussy or cock, waking up running and screaming and so on. What modern humans have done is cut out stuff or put it behind personas. They have less of the range of expression of the non-civilized, but the latter can and did and do express everyting the moderns do, including what looks and is very civil.

I would say that the savage is a human that is stripped of the thousands of years of human social conditioning. Does that leave us with a a violent person without love? A beserk human mating as animals do? I wouldn’t think that is necessarily true. Just how much can or should we reset ourselves beyond the social conditioning that have domesticated us?

On their own yes, yet the intellect has to paint itself a picture such to present possible dangers in the world. The duality is objectively real in the world e.g. death, injury and disease, so naturally the intellect has to figure if that’s going to happen or not. ‘morality’ when concepts about possible occurrences, is subjective – an illusion, but morality when it concerns safety is practically real.

the latter is why we shouldn’t want to be savages. one has only to look at history to see such lawless times, and note the destruction which ensued.

That’s all that goes on here, is embracing your inner savage. Insanity galore. How can I of all people be the sane one? How is that even possible? Turning a blind eye and pushing the mute button does wonders I guess.

Yes, but is the savage within as savage as people say or can it be gentle, too? Can not the Hulk be gentle even in its great strength and learn not to crush and smash? Does not Superman learn to moderate his strength so that he doesn’t crush that which he loves through not knowing how strong he is? The savage animal within us is also capable of great reason and common sense and seeming tameness. Consider Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia: I am not a tame Lion. Have you ever thought what Aslan eats when he gets hungry? Does he go hunting and is that the possible true reason why the speaking animals went dumb in the first place as the lion had to eat and had nothing else to hunt or perhaps fell to the temptation of eating of that forbidden meat? What of the children that became great rulers? Would Aslan not, on some level, be jealous of how they came into power in his realm when he was the King of the jungle and for their seeming fragility and showing of great strength might prompt him to be jealous and judging and want to test the limits of that? If he felt himself the proper ruler, how long could he keep his inner wildness in check if he wanted to lead and rule in their stead, if he felt he deserved it more. And at the point of destroying the white witch, did he do his best to understand her and try to reach her before such became necessary?

Now you’re full of shit.

How so and why?

Side question: Is that Spartacus, you? Looks like the replacement actor in the HBO series who couldn’t hold a candle to his predecessor in physique, form in combat sequences, grit, intensity, heart, etc.

Irreverent savagery lacks control which translates into might is not right because I’m a stoopid bully without a cause, but let me grace you with my coconuts so well hung as your booby prize.

Hunting game that is agreeing to be game is one thing, slaughter for slaughter’s sake is gratuitous and contemptible, empty and mindless. A waste of a fantasy. A stunted mentality without growth which hopefully won’t last forever.

If putting on big boy pants is too much then that sort of being should sacrifice himself harikari style. What a way to do the noble savage justice.

Actually, it is the original actor, Andy Whitfield, who died of Leukemia and was one of the best actors that filled that role.

Not all Savagery lacks control.

Why would game agree to be game?

It is almost impossible to embrace your inner savage. If you want to embrace your inner savage, then your arms have to come into your body. :-k

So you rather embrace your outer savage. But be careful, because you are probably not the only one who embraces the own outer savage.

there are physical arms and then there are spiritual arms and then there are mental arms and do we not have the right to bear arms?

I can has silly moments, too.

Civility does not fall like due in the nights from the sky, but stems out from decipline, or following principles. The basic concept is formulating premises on the basis of past experiences and some assumptions for testing and overall betterment.

And, those species who lack these abilities are called animals, otherwise there is not much difference between humans and them.

The whole of that exponential development of humans that we see today in the comparison of others spicies of the planet, is just because of this very ability of humans to define and follow decipline. Nothing would have been possible without that, including scientific/technological discoveries.

Thus, if one wants to loose all decipline, he has to follow this premise in all verticals of life, not merely use it as an excuse for his animal like behaviour. There must be some decipline, both inner and outer too. Even animals have that.

Again, it is very easy to talk about fancy phrases in the discussion, but impossible to implement those in the real world. And, that philosophy which is meant only for discussion and no relation with the reality, is not philosophy actually.

With love,
Sanjay

Control is an illusion. Lack of control is an illusion. Order is an illusion. Chaos is an illusion. Balance is an illusion. Imbalance is an illusion. Discipline is an illusion and lack of it is an illusion. All that exists is the blend, eternally, that is the only thing that is not an illusion. All that changes is how the blend presents itself and remains the same inherent. The animal is an illusion, civility an illusion, adaptation and its importance or lack thereof, just illusionary non-illusions blending and breeding change and non-change all in the same. Which is more savage, those that lived off the land and hunted and fought each other in their form of brutality or civility, or those who exist now in modern society who live off the concrete land and her resources and hunt each other and fight each other in the current formulations of brutality and civility?

What is thought to be impossible is often possible and vice versa. Possible in ways that they think impossible or not worth doing and impossible in ways they think possible and/or worth doing. Logic and emotion are illusions to instinct which itself is an illusion to emotion and logic which are illusions to each other at the same time as existing. Paradox becomes what we define it as even in the illusion of itself which claims them not to be paradox at all, but life and death mixed, war and peace mixed; the blend is all that exists. Eternal.