X-Message-Number: 17320
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:43:07 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Again, Self-worth

George Smith wrote in Message #17308:

>Mike Perry wrote in Message #17297:
>
>"Why fight with 'six guns
>blazing' if you--and others--are not seen as something worth fighting for?
>It seems clear enough that a sense of self-worth *could* be a trap but
>lacking it could so easily be one too, and perhaps a greater one. A better
>stance would, I think, recognize that there are appropriate and
>inappropriate ways of thinking about and valuing oneself and others. One
>should search for what is right and best rather than summarily rejecting
>any idea that the self has worth."
>
>Mike, you don't have to know what you are worth in order to want to blow
>away someone trying to kill you or people you love.

It's hard to see how you could avoid the conclusion, however, that you are 
worth *something*, that you are valuable, really, as well as those you 
love. Did I ever say one's "worth" had to be reducible to a number, or 
blasted dollars and cents? You could imagine it being an element in another 
ordered or partially ordered set, or (more likely) leave the matter fuzzy 
in a good many respects, though not all. To "assign worth" in my mind does 
not require much specificity, but enough at least that you *would* be 
willing to fight for your life and that of others. To go only this far is 
far from going nowhere, nor are we to conclude that the concept of 
self-worth is thereby rendered meaningless or superfluous. A lot of people 
don't seem much interested in fighting for their lives or others', at least 
on the level that we immortalists are attempting. For them, a certain sense 
of self-worth is lacking, and I think it's something they badly need.

>George Smith
>CI member and totally worthless

You are not totally worthless. Does your cat, Dr. Spot, think *he* is 
worthless?

Here is another thought that seems relevant. Let's go back to the 
proposition, "you are a machine to perpetuate your genes." I find this 
incompatible with immortalism and reject it, as I imagine most if not all 
other immortalists do, or at least, are trying to do (how could they not 
be?). But on the other hand, clearly there is powerful selection pressure 
to implant this proposition in the minds of those who, being the mortal 
organisms they have been up to now, find the perpetuation of their genes a 
vital concern. And I think this could explain why one would fight for one's 
survival *and* that of loved ones (sharing genes or otherwise helping 
perpetuate them, in so many cases) but still, deep down, not feel 
comfortable assigning worth to oneself. The self, as a biological 
throwaway, is not something nature has assigned overriding importance to. 
This is inevitably reflected in the psychology of the very individuals 
shaped by the selection process. When such people experience emotional 
problems, gently steering them toward mentally affirming the proposition 
(without necessarily telling them you are doing specifically that) might be 
a way of getting them to feel happier and better-adjusted. This could 
explain the therapeutic benefits ascribed to the de-emphasis of the concept 
of the self and its worth.

But it doesn't cut it with me, an immortalist, and I doubt I'm alone, even 
among those who have not joined our ranks. We want to be more than human. 
That will clearly involve something more than "perpetuating our genes" 
which I think must soon become an anachronism anyway, in view of advancing 
technology. I really think we will need some appreciation of the self and 
its worth for the long road ahead.

Mike Perry
worth something, along with others (and an Alcor member)

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17320