Quote from near the end of the book: “At this point in most books, the authors promise you that if you do what they say, you’re sure to succeed. In this case, you’re sure to fail. To be rejected. To discover wrong paths. To see what humiliation is like, firsthand”…
Me, after reading the above:I don’t like it, it sounds dangerous…”
…”You’re sure to live. And then yes, maybe, you might reach your goals. Would you have it any other way?”
So, is The Flinch a book or not? In theory, it is; to me, all it takes for a book to be a book, apt for review here on Goodreads, is for it to call itself by that name — being an actual bound edition is becoming more and more passé, so let’s stick to what we’ve got. In practice, however, it’s not really one: it could have been an exceptionally long post on some forum or an article on a site like High Existenceor 30 Sleeps. If you ask me, it makes no difference at all: what’s important here is the information.
The Flinch strikes at human instinctive self-defense mechanism — the out-stretched palms hiding one’s face from the… face of danger — taken to less physical domains of existence, such as talking to strangers, taking plunges off of various heights or simply doing anything that might challenge our comfortable status quo. The book says that when we feel our all trying to prevent us from doing something (and we can’t find any good, logical reason not to do it if we ask ourselves “what am I really scared of?”), it’s probably others people’s fears, prejudice and/or experience kicked into us: from parental overprotection to serial-killer ward to “a frined of mine once…” to cold, hard facts of life.
The things is though that if we follow everyone else’s advice we never get to experience anything for our own, we never get to face our fears and know ourselves a little bit better, much less create ourselves into what we’d dream to be. We never get to take life to the next level, and then the next. While it may be true that some, if not few, of society’s fears we’ve taken up would be good to keep in mind at all times, I’ve found from whenever I’ve fought The Flinch that it never was all that bad. On the contrary — who knows what having learned to pursue a comfortable, flinchy front might be robbing me from daily?
It was a good, short, crisp read that filled me with inspiration which will probably prove to be short-lived as with other writings of similar kind but I hope I keep it with me and remember its lesson for long.
A few days ago I was at one of Mr Blacksnake’s (Mavrofidis) lectures. The subject was Multimedia Application Programming II; the practical side is working with Flash and ActionScript 3.0, the theoretical side is an introduction to systems theory. It really is a good idea. It puts learning how to code and script into perspective, not leaving it just as an empty shell of a skill but actually connecting it with an ontological background. Through understanding the basics principles of object-oriented programming, it seems we might be able to learn a few more things about the basic principles of the universe and how we look at ourselves, which neatly reflects itself into programming and scripts which are of course artificial cosmogenesies and ontologies of their own.
Silently I was pondering these things, paying attention to Mr. Blacksnake’s lecture on autopoeisis. And then it came to me.
I often hear people comparing humans –or other biological organisms, such as animals– to machines, factories or other purely logical systems. I can practically hear mum telling me: “Your body is like a factory so it needs the best materials so that it can work well!”, giving me some vitamins in the process. In some ways this isn’t a bad metaphor. Living beings work by using chemical reactions in order to perceivably achieve certain goals, a conjunction of which actually allows the individual to survive. However, such approaches often reduce personality, cultural traits and other signs of behaviour to mere results of genetics, natural selection and instincts. They’re closer to saying “living beings are just computers that run certain programs, and those programs are written on their genes. They’re saved in the individual’s ROM (Read-Only Memory) and as such cannot be modified by environmental factors. Instincts, social behaviour and traits to our knowledge only found in humans, such as creative inclination, aren’t fundamentally different to each other. They’re just steps of different height in humanity’s long and ascending staircase of evolution”.
Agreed, some basic behaviour is written on our genes, the kind no person or living organism can do without; nutrition, rest, breathing, reproduction. But human behaviour and activity lies far beyond just munching, sleeping and having sex. What we as humans use to separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom lies comfortably in the domain of culture: language, facial expressions, logic, ethics, art, means of communication, even self-consciousness and self-awareness. All these aspects are taught to us from an early age from our parents and the rest of society. People seem to inherently and genetically possess the mental capabilities for what we would call advanced thought, communication in the form of language, logic and being self-aware. What’s notable though is that we’re born just with the capability, not the ability itself. If we’re never taught how to speak a language, we’ll never learn any language. If we’re never taught in an early age that what we see in the mirror is ourselves and that a clear distinction between our self and the rest of the world does in fact exist, we’ll never develop an ego and/or self-awareness. Everything that makes us what we would call human in the social sense is thus culturally acquired and not passed down through our genes.
There is some evidence that human social behaviour is not hereditary information passed down through the genome. We have learned as much from children that for various reasons lacked parent care and grew up on their own or were raised by animals. These feral children, as they are known, typically walk on all fours or swing from tree to tree, growl and do not show signs of human self-awareness, such as recognising themselves in the mirror. In most cases feral children later introduced to human society have not been able to adapt, ie go through the enculturation process expected complete by all. To me that is no mystery. We presume feral children should be able to adapt to human societies just because they’re human, just because the rest of the “normal” humans are like that, have always been. We expect that just because everyone behaves in a certain way that it’s somehow ingrained, that it’s natural. But let’s think about that for a second; there is an amazing variety in different cultures around the world. If it was ingrained, we’d expect cultures, especially ones in similar climates, would show more similarities. Furthermore, how easy is it for Greeks to, for instance, get accustomed to British culture? Not very. It might take years for the individual to adapt to the subtle changes in everyday life and performances. They might always stand out as strange, unadaptable. How can we thus expect a human nurtured as a dog, wolf or monkey to fare any better?
I’m inviting you to research feral children, look for info and videos.
You might be as shocked as I was.
This is the idea that came to my mind not unlike a frothing cascade while listening to Mr Mavrofidis: humans are indeed comparable to computers. But not in the logical, deterministic sense. A computer consists of hardware and software. The hardware is the the physical part — the CPU, the GPU, RAM etc — and the software is the programs, the ideas, the zeros and ones that come into existence through the hardware. The two depend on one another to carry out what they were designed for. Software would not exist without hardware, it needs hardware to be activated. Hardware, on the other hand, has no reason to exist if no software exists to use it. So was it software or hardware the first of the two to be designed? It reminds me of universal questions involving chickens and eggs… Roots aside, hardware of the last 25 years or so does have a kind of software that runs with no need for software present. It’s the Basic Input/Output System. Some version of BIOS is present in all computer’s motherboard’s Read-Only Memory and it basically tells it what to do when it is turned on, where to look for the real software, when to shutdown if the CPU is overheating etc… See where I’m going with this already?
Hardware, the vessel, the physical counterpart, is the human body. Software we can divide into BIOS and the Operating System. I’m taking into account every feature, program and application executable through the OS and every goal achievable through it as part of the OS. The BIOS is hereditary behaviour, what we could call instincts. Hunger, sexual urges and what we might do to satisfy them, aversion to pain and danger, perhaps some inclination for style of movement or typical gestures (a man I know does some of his father’s gestures without ever having met him), seeking warmth or shade in respective situations, the list goes on. These functions ensure survival of our “hardware”, just like the BIOS does for computers. It also bridges the gap between the physical and the mental, paves the road to the land of behaviour and culture.
Now, the human Operating System isn’t exactly like having Windows, Linux or Mac OSX installed on your PC. Windows was designed to fulfill certain working requirements, such as giving the user the flexibility to switch from one task to the other quickly, efficiently and aesthetically pleasantly. The human Operating System has not been designed by anyone in particular: it’s a conglomeration of different behaviour patterns (culture?) mostly but not exclusively taken up at childhood, chiefly influenced by any given social standards and by each individual’s parents (the parents also in turn chiefly influenced by any given social standards). Culture, of course, is a very complicated matter, and it penetrates our minds so deeply and thoroughly, it subconsciously makes us think that it, the way WE see the world, is the only truth. In fact, each one of us runs a different OS, comprising many different little “modules”: tastes, opinions, ideas, sexual preference, self-esteem, modes of interaction with others, sense of humour, what we think of or what we do when we are alone… Everything we might call personality falls under this category. Yes, who we are belongs squarely in the realm of nurtured behaviour, the kind of stuff we pick up, imitate (with criteria already imitated by our parents, parent figures, maybe something BIOS-like on the way? I don’t know) and then reproduce ourselves, ready for others to pick up and imitate. It reminds me of Richard Dawkin’s “meme”s, so narrowly used in today’s internet cyberculture.
The more I thought about it, the more it all connected, and the more it all frightened me. The mere existence, the mere plausibility of phenomena such as feral children doubts, deconstructs even, the fabric of the foundations of human society, what’s considered right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. It disconnects humanity from humans! It’s easy to say but you can’t really wrap your head around it. A human can just as easily be encultured to become dog, wolf or monkey, as well as a human, in all our different forms through different cultures and, ultimately, Operating Systems. The reverse has been tried and tested with limited success (think about wild cats next to human-raised cats), but no chimp, for example, has fully taken up human behaviour through nurturing. Does that mean human hardware is more “advanced”, has a broader range of selection, is more adaptable? Possibly. But the fact on its own proves nothing. Furthermore, it underlines what we already know but refuse to admit: that the human condition, in all its known forms through different cultures and wildly variable manifestations of unique and reproducing Operating Systems, cannot be pigeonholed into a standard set of values. Why? Simply because what we accept as our society today is one of many, one condition out of infinite, an activation bound by randomness, maintained by constant imitation, brought forward not by necessity nor efficiency.
What was first? Hardware of software? Chicken or egg? Did humans evolve their hardware together with their software, was software evolved because of the advanced hardware, did the hardware expand its capabilities to satisfy the growing demands of the software? Was there any evolution in the first place?
If computers were designed by humans to fulfill certain tasks, their competence of carrying out those tasks would separate the computers with superior hardware –and therefore a wider selection of superior software– from the rest. What purpose, what task might humans have embedded in their “design”, by which their “competence” might be measured? An answer to that wouldn’t come short of the meaning of life… The purpose of it all?
I could go on and on. I already feel this is too long for anyone on the web to have the attention required to read — friends and family included. I hope I have inspired some thought to anyone brave and patient enough to have read this far! I will sign off with an impressive, memorable little something Karina replied to me when I once asked her what came first: human nature or human culture.
Nature is cultural. I mean, think of the distinction between a natural phenomenon and a natural disaster. They’re both different interpretations of the same thing. The difference lies in humanity’s ability to deal with them effectively. The distinction between us humans and “nature” is purely cultural, constructed. We wouldn’t be speaking of nature if a concept of nature did not exist.
However, culture is also natural. The development of the concept of culture in humans has been a natural evolutionary process that has taken thousands of years and has come about because of social interaction in our species, and other unknown factors. We wouldn’t be speaking of culture if our species hadn’t evolved into a being capable of speech.
