while reading the essay on the various levels of cooperation, a few points had been raised by the author, which are rankling in my mind. i would like you people to help me get some ideas as to where my line of thought is going astray.
first, a little general idea about the author's view point; he states that the 'True cooperation is found in other centered behaviour, i.e., cooperating in terms of the largest good'. he also treats the reflex level of cooperation as the most basic, and as deduced by his writing, as the most limited and elemental form of cooperation.
i am confused now... why is the form of cooperation that has played the most integral part in the evolution of ALL life, (not just of humans, but the whole array of life forms) considered as the lowest level. on the other hand, the other centered level of cooperation, which, according to me, has hardly been witnessed in the history of mankind, has been accorded the highest level!!
think about it... how much have we, as humans, benefitted from this other centered level, whereas we owe our existence to the so called reflex level. and also, in this others centered approach, we assume that we would be helping and uplifting the other members. so if only one party is the giver, and the others the takers, why is it called cooperation? they give the example of parents and children. this according to me, is not even cooperation. why? because what are the children contributing to the system. they are only taking from it.
therefore, according to me, the priorities should be reversed. reflex level of cooperation is the highest level we have achieved so far!!
people may say that since we don't have enough examples of other centered level of cooperation, it would be unfair to base my argument by comparing the reflex and other centered levels. therefore, allow me to try to compare the reflex and getting ahead level of cooperation. firstly, is this getting ahead level even cooperation? how can you cooperate to compete? it says that people cooperate with some to get ahead of others. but where have we seen that once the individual is stronger than his cooperating group, he would even care to cooperate with them any longer. would he not be having the feeling of getting ahead of even his comrades? if not, then why is he the leader (refer to fifth line of the fourth page of the article). how has he 'gotten ahead' to that level while leaving his comrades behind? that means he was not cooperating his fullest to the group, but keeping a bit extra for himself in order to give himself an edge. i would like to say that it is just manipulation of simple beings by an intelligent organisation or individual to achieve its self interest. SELF INTEREST!!!! a higher level of cooperation is based on self interest?? how can it be called higher then. instead, look at the little amoeba guys, who are ready to drink poison for their friends. so who's the charitable one of the two? also, just think about the stakes here. the so called higher level of cooperation is about improving your personal or (rarely) your cooperating community's condition. but reflex cooperation is about the biggest thing of all. it is about survival. you can say for yourself as to which is the higher one now.
one more thing before you bash me... we know that the reflex and instinctive levels of cooperation are inherent in us, whereas the others are learned. why do we assume that what nature has given to us is of lower value than what we learn? should it not be that what we have received from nature is the biggest and most important asset we have?
i may have not been able to express properly my line of thinking here. but that would become clear only after more discussion.
waiting for your feedback....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
beautiful thoughts, sid....
i think the essay on cooperation in the tau thinks other centered level of cooperation is best because it is the most difficult for humans...it has come to this conclusion because of 2 reasons:-
1) it is a human who has written this essay, hence he/she thinks tat human cooperation is the most exemplary..
2) we are made to believe right from our childhood tat 'it is only hard work tat pays'. the corollary to this is tat watever is the most difficult to practise should be the most divine. hence other centered level of cooperation is given so much importance...
wat wud have been the case if an amoeba had written this essay - he/she-amoeba wud have said reflexive is the best...
i personally believe, we need to stop thinkin first tat humans r the most intelligent...then v shud understand tat hard work shud b used only when necessary...
also, the other-centered approach may have got prominence bcos v r always tryin to cover up the fact tat v r selfish...y b ashamed tat v r selfish, i believe v shud find solutions which factors in the fact tat human beings r by nature selfish rather than altruistic..
weird thoughts, i know...but i hope i make sense atleast for sid (my weird-brother)...
right on joe... you seem to have hit the nail right on the head. it is in fact our selfishness that drives our philosophies. the world is possibly extolling the virtue of this level, just in case someone may get 'inspired', and in order to look great and high, may end up doing something for the society, ie the world. and as you said, also to hide their guilt of being selfish, they call natural acts like parenthood as the pinnacle of cooperation etc. they are trying to project their greatness. i mean, what exactly is great about showering love on your own child. do that to a poor kid out of just love, and only then would i accept this philosophy.
thanx for d gr8 feedback joey boy...
very profound indeed..siddharth...!!
do i hear the amoeba guys clapping already?..
but seriously u raise a valid point..!!
i think apart from the point of reference argument which joseph has made i would like to add on another argument..which i think is central to the whole co-operation debate. it is of the stakes involved!!
think abt it..if we all had our lives dependent on co-operation we would be co-operating all the time.
for example- assignments and quizes!!
the amoebas, with all due respect to them, had their lives dependent on it. so why should we consider them great co-operative beings?
if we had the offer of getting an i-pod each if we agreed to eat rice..everyone would have just gone with it.
we give so much of importance to other-centered level of co-op because for some rare people, in some rare times, the narrow self interest doesnt matter much!!
they co-operate with some other objectives in mind and for that reason they deserve the respect!!
aman, you gave a great argument... and you are right in every respect.. but my point is simply this.. that other- centered level of cooperation is considered high because, in your words 'for some rare people, in some rare times, the narrow self interest doesnt matter much'. that does deserve respect. but, my point is, if this cooperation is about a few people, how can we call it cooperation. it is about an individual serving the others, while the rest are lapping it off him. it may be a great form of charity and individual greatness etc.. but cooperation? i dont think it should be called that...
Post a Comment