Re: virus: Genetic Ethics (was Cow)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Brett Robertson

--WebTV-Mail-1983413380-16522
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

I admit that there is a paradox suggested by my definitions of fantasy and sexual perversion (that fantasy might be a perversion by its very nature and thus considered "bad"-- as contrasted from sexual perversion when defined as a violation of one's "mother"... though sex may still be assumed "good").

I am willing to discuss the relationship suggested by these two types of "perversion" (sexual perversion and fantasy). I think we can find such a relationship.

The first thing I might note is:

A worldview may be FOUNDED upon fantasy (such as one in which a child is forced to take a parents word for something and act upon it without being allowed the chance to internalize the reasons for it... thus is acting upon *fantasized* reasons and building a justification for such understandings of themself).

In such cases, the "perversion" would seem to be the self-justified developmental "truth" of the child (which is then asserted against the parents insistence otherwise). The "fantasy" of such a child (whose very foundation is fantasy) might truly be his/her own imaginative reasoning (as such, it truly seems fantastical). And the "destruction" of what the parent (ie mother) stands for, through the reinstatement of a developmental truth (called fantasy) is a circular way of CONFIRMING the actual truth of the mother (in contrast to what she tells the child is true but which cannot be justified as such).

Only THUS may "fantasy" be healthy and also violate the "truth" represented by one's mother (that this so-called "truth" was mis-stated in the first place and the so-called "fantasy" a destruction of the [un] truth which was internalized by the child as a foundation for themself).

As such, (non) "fantasized" (actual) *truth* and sex with one's (truly) *perverse* (fantasized) "mother" may (not not) be perverse (if only fantasized to be fantasized).

Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay ...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!:
http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876

--WebTV-Mail-1983413380-16522
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Message/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Received: from mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.97) by
	postoffice-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Mon, 24 May 1999 23:39:55
	-0700 (PDT)

	mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97)
	with ESMTP id XAA12499; Mon, 24 May 1999 23:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id
	AAA26631 for virus-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 00:29:00 -0600

From:           	BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson)
Date sent:      	Tue, 25 May 1999 00:36:52 -0500 (EST)
To:             	virus@lucifer.com
Subject:        	virus: Genetic Ethics (was Cow)
Send reply to:  	virus@lucifer.com

> Yes, I think that ethics relate to genetics.
>
> Yes, I think the similarity in the two concepts resolves to a common
> assumption-- that one might describe reality from the perspective of the
> survival of species over individuals.
>
> This is to say that "ethics" relate to "intersubjectivity"... which is
> also to say that there can be no individuals in a group.
>
There can be no individual without a group from which the individual may stand apart.
>
> Thus,
> Darwinian "genetics" (mutual destruction, or *competition*, and
> evolution through "mutation").. *genetics* is about self-negation
> (paradox) and a resulting anti-intellectualism (force becomes supreme
> through cognitive paradox/ self negation for group... and an emotional
> "truth" prevails, ie. love and will overcome logic resulting in violence
> and mutual destruction... thereby requiring *ethics* as an external
> logic for controlling emotions).
>
Competition and co-operation are both important forces in evolution through natural selection (cf. THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION edited by Robert Axelrod; also see SOCIAL EVOLUTION by Robert Trivers).
>
> On the other hand, MEMETICS is about mutual cooperation, and replication
> through logic (suggesting the *mutation* which might overcome Darwinian
> Genetics/ ethics). That is, historical logic allows that the best MEME
> is that whose pattern is most cooperative and thus which most easily
> passes from one (like) host to another.
>
Strange, since Susan Blackmore's book claims that the self is a memetic fiction (I disagree with her on this, her Zennish predilections, and her entire parallelism with Behaviorist dogma).
>
> So perhaps memetics is about the survival of the *individual*
> (exemplified by the survival of ideas begun by individuals which then
> spread to others). Thus, if "morality" is that which contrasts from
> ethics (such that morality is a good idea which spreads, uh i dunno);
> then, memetics IS about morality and...
>
> The discussion of ethics is a much less valuable way of talking about
> memetics than is morality.
>
Memetics is NOT about morality; it does not matter to a meme whether it is "good" or "bad", only how efficiently it replicates (actually, this doesn't even matter to the meme, memes not being self-aware, but it matters as to whether the meme does or does not survive and perdure).
>
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> http://www.window.to/mindrec
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
> ...........
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!:
> http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876
>
>

--WebTV-Mail-1983413380-16522--

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Brett Robertson