X-Message-Number: 25439
From: 
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:32:58 EST
Subject: objective values

Referring to what RBR wrote in part (shown at bottom):
 
This is where the rubber hits the road, as they say. This is where  
philosophy becomes practical, a guide to living.
 
RBR believes (along with most scholars past and present) that values are  
arbitrary, that you can't objectify the subjective, so to speak. 
 
Wrong. My main effort in YOUNIVERSE is to clarify the way(s) in which we  can 
apply cognition to biology in order, first, to understand our motivations;  
and, second, to achieve our goals; and, third, to modify our goals or  
motivations where appropriate.
 
It's not easy and it's not simple, but it is utterly misleading to say  
therefore that it is not possible. 
 
Certainly we were formed by evolution, and the "interests" of the genome  are 
different from those of the individual, and our current biology/psychology  
is a mish-mash of drives that are poorly understood and to some degree  

inconsistent. But the merest common sense will tell us (if we think about it  
long 
enough and hard enough) that it is presumptively true that (1) we can  

reorganize our motivations in ways that will reduce the counterproductive  
aspects of 
our current habits; and (2) possibly even restructure our basic  biology in 
ways that will improve our enjoyment of life.
 
Obviously, I could be right about some things and wrong about others. The  

more distant or more extreme projections are more speculative and uncertain. But
 some things are relatively easy to understand and implement, even though 
still  very little appreciated.
 
The most obvious (although still only to a small minority) is that the  

"interests" or "motivations" of the species or of a society are not identical  
with 
those of the individual, and the individual (if he is sane) must put his  own 
interests first (while of course recognizing the connections and feedbacks).  
This is sometimes called "enlightened self interest," and its defenders 

through  history have included some illustrious names, but relatively few and 
with 
very  little influence. The typical person--historically and today--is a dupe 
of his  genetics and conditioning, which will probably kill him.
 
Robert Ettinger
RBR wrote in part:
 

The idea  that the human species is 'primitive' or 'base' and needs 
to 'progress'  beyond such baseness is laughably absurd; the very 
idea is created by  members of the human species, and has a 
psychology all of its own. The  desire to better oneself is 
completely arbitrary from an absolute  perspective, itself the 
result of natural selection, while the particular  definition of 
'better' is similarly objectively arbitrary and a product of  human 
evolution.

Such ideas are created by human minds, who try to  pretend they are 
not human; whose very value system, which causes them to  look down 
on the human form with disgust, is itself an intrinsic part of  
humanity.

It's not that you cannot rise above what you are. It's  that 'above 
what you are' is determined by who you are, and does not  possess an 
objectively useful definition. People who think otherwise are  
simply mistaken, having no knowledge of the nature of  reality.






 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25439