X-Message-Number: 2770
From: 
Date: Sat, 21 May 94 21:54:59 EDT
Subject: CRYONICS wetterau 2

A couple of more quick comments on James 
Wetterau's remarks concerning the Natural History of Values:

Mr. Wetterau says the goal of human existence must be "sui generis in each
individual"--unique. I think this is by no means obvious, and probably not
true except perhaps in trivial ways.

It is often said--especially by egalitarians--that every person is unique.
Trivialities aside, this seems manifestly untrue. I cannot think of any
important aspects of my mind and character that are not shared by a great
many people.

At the level of the self circuit, it is even less likely that significant
differences exist. In some sense, the elements or parameters of the self
circuit must be analogous to genes. Probably they must,, indeed,  be
determined by specific genes or combinations. If I remember correctly, some
97% of human genes are shared by chimpanzees. At the level of adult
experience, genes do not determine everything, since twins differ somewhat;
but the self circuit may be primitive and generic. If it turns out, in fact,
that self circuits are essentially identical for all people, this may give
another twist to the Eastern notion that we all share each other's existence
and to the hunt for valid criteria of identity and survival.

As I think I noted previously, Mr. Wetterau simplifies my "feel-good" in ways
I didn't intend. When I say the only goal conceivable (to me) is feel-good,
that does not imply an idiot's orgy. At the conscious level there are many
kinds of feel-good (and feel-bad), and the most primitive ones are not
usually the ones that most occupy the mind or figure most importantly in life
strategy. Primitive feel-good is often necessary, but seldom sufficient.

I don't think it is a play on words to insist that the only POSSIBLE goal is
feel-good. When Mr. Wetterau says the goal may be something else, such as
self-actualization, that is only re-defining feel-good, or expressing an
opinion as to which kind of feel-good is most important.  But we don't want
just opinions or guesses or introspections; we want evidence, and finally
proof.

How does it help to express things in this way? I believe it helps, first,
 by creating a framework for investigation and reference, making language
less slippery. Second, it tends to promote honesty and demystify the
psyche--to encourage science and discourage superstition and gobbledegook. 

It is often said that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion"--but this
isn't true, except politically.  No one is intellectually or morally entitled
to a dangerously frivolous opinion, let alone a demented one.  We are on the
road to PROVING which values are valid, and this trip is necessary.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2770