Coronavirus


Peter

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

No more (biological) evolution was/is needed. However, we are now starting to self evolve.

Brant,

Even back when I was a tenderfoot in Objectivism, I have always found this position in O-Land, usually implied rather than stated, perplexing and troubling.

Why on earth did humans ever stop evolving for a spell? And now you say evolution not only stopped for a spell, it started again? Really?

Has any other living organism--other than human beings in your view--ever been able to step outside the Law of Identity as concerns life and evolution? 

But wait, there's more.

 

There's the toxic part.

And that is the implication (or often overt position) that man is perfectible.

And why is that toxic? After all, this was Rand's own view. Well, let's use her own logic, the one she used for altruism. If man is to be a self-sacrificial animal, that means someone has to be collecting the sacrifices. 

So, if man is perfectible, that means someone has to be doing the perfecting. And that someone, per Rand's own definition, is imperfect. After all, if something is perfectible, that means it is currently imperfect. Right?

In this view, the imperfect will perfect the imperfect.

What could possibly go wrong?

:) 

 

At the level of the individual (a person perfecting his or her own self), that means man is born with the equivalent of Original Sin. He is born imperfect and has to atone for it by choice (by choosing reason) in order to become perfect, just like the Christian is born imperfect (with Original Sin) and has to choose to believe in Christ, then die to become perfect. The requirement that man is born imperfect and can choose his way out of it is the same in both cases.

Except in Objectivism, man can choose to shed his rotten imperfection while here on earth and in Christianity, he has to choose to shed it here on earth, but has to die to get to perfection.

In both cases, does that sound like reality or fiction? To me, it sounds like people making claims of fact they can never substantiate.

Now let's go to the group level and start perfecting others. Hell, that's just another form of tyranny. Every time perfecting others has been tried on a large-scale, it has ended in a blood-bath with piles and piles of corpses of innocents.

This is what happens when biology is removed from one's view of human nature. 

 

I disagree with this whole approach. I say reality, i.e. human nature, will not be replaced by man's desires, no matter how well-intentioned. Man is what he is, A is A. Man is not an imperfect form of what he should be. Growth, life cycles, and evolution are not optional nor are they imperfect. They are part of the very identity of life.

When my own identity is not good enough to be an identity unless I somehow fix it, I say that idea is existentially flawed, not me. I perfectly exist as I am. My very existence is not part of some ideologically-conceived reject pile unless I repent for existing like that. (Ditto religion-wise.)

 

I also say man never stopped evolving. Evolving and adapting to conditions is inherent in all life, not just humans. Just like being an individual while at the same time being a member of a species are inherent.

For man to stop evolving or to be perfectible, he has to stop being a life form. In other words, bye-bye hierarchical knowledge. Bye-bye concepts and, ultimately, bye-bye observation.

The only way to get there is by faith, not reason.

In other words, in my view, evolution is not the equivalent of the human appendix.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2022 at 9:22 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't know where you are going to get the three hours to see this...

, , ,

It's the interview between Joe Rogan and Dr. Robert Malone.

RbEtHaVCeNYs_640x360.jpg
WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

Joe Rogan sits down with Dr. Robert Malone and discusses the deadly dangers of the MRNA Vaccines and the censorship of him trying to warn the world about it.

 

. . .

 

EDIT: There is a glitch in the video from 1:55:41 to 2:03:39. The image freezes during that time and there is no sound. But if you look at the video scrubber numbers, the video is actually running. So don't think this is a problem with the video no longer being available or your computer no longer working. Just jump the vid to 2:03:39 and it resumes as normal.

 

Big tech is trying to censor its way out of the fallout from this.

Logopit_1638990978987.jpg
WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

The now-viral episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, featuring guest Dr. Robert Malone, is officially being purged from Google-owned YouTube. The episode was posted in full to an account...

Soon Trump will inaugurate Truth Media.

What an advertisement for the new platform. They are saving Trump money on his marketing budget.

:) 

Gettr is certainly saying thank you, thank you, thank you.

It received a huge increase in number of new members because of this.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Moot, since we can do no more than evolve personally and can only presuppose that future.

Tony,

Absolutely right.

I recently read an idea somewhere that I like a lot. I don't remember where, but the person was referring to fake news. I find this idea applies to all thinking in general.

Predictions are not facts.

Predictions are important for setting goals, but they are not facts.

Predictions are about the future. Facts are about the present. Even the past can get dubious fact-wise. 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, even though I'm no scientist re evolution, genes, etc., from what I have read so far, individuals can evolve brainwise through neuroplasticity (where the mind changes the brain).

By evolve, I mean the brain creates new genes and is able to pass them on. Ditto for the rest of the body. So, there is something--a small something--to the Lamarckian view of evolution (he's the giraffe neck guy). 

As an aside, you will encounter zealots when you mention Lamarck, but read more and you will see that "Lamarckian evolution has been 100% debunked" falls into the same category as "The science is settled."

Species obviously evolve.

So it is not either individuals evolve or groups do.

It is both.

We can even do this as a syllogism.

Individuals evolve.
Species evolve.
Therefore individuals and species evolve.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Actually, even though I'm no scientist re evolution, genes, etc., from what I have read so far, individuals can evolve brainwise through neuroplasticity (where the mind changes the brain).

By evolve, I mean the brain creates new genes and is able to pass them on. Ditto for the rest of the body. So, there is something--a small something--to the Lamarckian view of evolution (he's the giraffe neck guy). 

As an aside, you will encounter zealots when you mention Lamarck, but read more and you will see that "Lamarckian evolution has been 100% debunked" falls into the same category as "The science is settled."

Species obviously evolve.

So it is not either individuals evolve or groups do.

It is both.

We can even do this as a syllogism.

Individuals evolve.
Species evolve.
Therefore individuals and species evolve.

:) 

Michael

 

3 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Technically speaking, it's said that individuals don't evolve, only species evolve (physically,that is...)

For reference:
(note: this is not my argument; I'm just a layman. Just sharing the "teaching the controversy" moment, here. Although if I were to wander into it, I'd say that we can certainly evolve  conceptuallyintellectually, morally, and "spiritually", but that's not exactly what the experts are arguing about.)

MISCONCEPTION: Individual organisms can evolve during a single lifespan.

CORRECTION: Evolutionary change is based on changes in the genetic makeup of populations over time. Populations, not individual organisms, evolve. Changes in an individual over the course of its lifetime may be developmental (e.g., a male bird growing more colorful plumage as it reaches sexual maturity) or may be caused by how the environment affects an organism (e.g., a bird losing feathers because it is infected with many parasites); however, these shifts are not caused by changes in its genes. While it would be handy if there were a way for environmental changes to cause adaptive changes in our genes — who wouldn’t want a gene for malaria resistance to come along with a vacation to Mozambique? — evolution just doesn’t work that way. New gene variants (i.e., alleles) are produced by random mutation, and over the course of many generations, natural selection may favor advantageous variants, causing them to become more common in the population.
 

logo-ue.png
EVOLUTION.BERKELEY.EDU

Unfortunately, many people have persistent misconceptions about evolution. Some are simple misunderstandings -- ideas that develop in...
apple-touch-icon@2.png?v=8ba7bd5294eb
BIOLOGY.STACKEXCHANGE.COM

My university professor stated that "individuals do not evolve, populations do". But aren't populations made up of individuals? That's...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TG,

So call it adaptation for individuals and evolution for species?

And the criteria is a change in the genetic code for both? The same fundamental thing?

I guess...

Academics have to make their money somehow, I suppose.

If I want a pet, I get a dog, not a theory...

:) 

I'm beginning to dislike academics as much as lawyers...

:)

Michael

  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

So call it adaptation for individuals and evolution for species?

And the criteria is a change in the genetic code for both? The same fundamental thing?

I guess...

Academics have to make their money somehow, I suppose.

If I want a pet, I get a dog, not a theory...

:) 

I'm beginning to dislike academics as much as lawyers...

:)

Michael

C'mon, now, Michael; "trust the science"...

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
😈

  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TG,

I've heard this "individuals don't evolve" thing before and it is stated in the tone of a catechism, usually with a finger-wag. But the premise is that individuals and species are not integrated. That they are two different life forms that are only connected by words, not reality, so to speak.

In their view, evolution is not a holistic process that applies to life as it exists. It is the quintessential gotcha. An endless source of serotonin...

:)

Michael

 

EDIT: To get more clarity, let's put it this way. If evolution is considered as a result only, it is the result of the adaptations and resulting gene changes of individuals.

If evolution is considered as a process, there can be no evolution without individual adaptation and gene changes. They are part of the process.

This is the same error that I keep harping on in O-Land where people believe human individuals can exist as individuals without being human. :) 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

've heard this "individuals don't evolve" thing before and it is stated in the tone of a catechism, usually with a finger-wag.

I know I've taken as a "given", if not as a catechism. I don't think I've ever personally noted any objections to it before in O'land, at least up until now. But now it has me re-reading that Branden quote I posted earlier, "the course of evolution has not stopped, but continues in and and through us". If not a direct challenge to the idea  of individuals not evolving, it certainly suggests holistic/integrated approach you advocate to the idea. (Which would be appropriate for an O'ist to say, given the O'ist motif of challenging false dichotomies, like "nature/nuture", etc...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

The flu is not only making a "comeback", after having a "year off", but now, apparently, it's shacked up with the 'rona and had an illicit "love child"...announcing the newest addition to the family: "Flurona".

TG,

That's one belly-flop of an idea.

It's premised on the notion that if a person is sick with two different things at once, you call it one disease only and make up a name for it.

jikXAp1Lg1A_640x360.jpg
WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

WOOOOO SPOOOOPY oh wait it's just having two sicknesses at once: https://archive.ph/MPPyz Support via donation: Patreon: https://tinyurl.com/y2jothtp Subscribestar:...

We can do this with food, too, I guess.

Instead of a menu offering steak and potatoes, it can now offer a steatato meal.

Imagine the price you can put on that, especially if you can get a celebrity eating it and calling it that. Best of all, you don't even have to change the food on the plate.

Ms. Superhero Movie Star: "When I get hungry for steatato, I go to The Woke Cucumber. They have the best steatato in the world and it's delicious."

:)

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

That's one belly-flop of an idea.

It's premised on the notion that if a person is sick with two different things at once, you call it one disease only and make up a name for it.

 

 

"Simpsons did it": "We call it "3 Stooges Syndrome..."
 


 

 

40 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

We can do this with food, too, I guess.

Instead of a menu offering steak and potatoes, it can now offer a steatato meal.

Imagine the price you can put on that, especially if you can get a celebrity eating it and calling it that. Best of all, you don't even have to change the food on the plate.

 

Um..."Simpsons did it...AGAIN!" Tomato + Tobacco= TOMACCO...
"I though you said it tasted terrible?"
"It does...but it's smooth and mild..."


(The Simpsons...is there ANYTHING they can't predict? Never forget "housecat flu" and media-manipulation for fear-mongering by the predatory class... "Get over here, NBC...")
 

 

  • Smile 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Report: School District Warns Parents of Sudden Cardiac Arrest in Grades K-12

A school district in New York informed parents that staff are now required to monitor for signs of cardiac arrest in children, according to an email reported by the Gateway Pundit.

Eastport-South Manor Central School District in Suffolk County, New York, also told parents that a new regulation requires staff to watch for “students who exhibit signs and symptoms of sudden cardiac arrest,” the email stated.

“I find it disturbing that they are now bringing on the new medical staff who specialize in sudden cardiac arrest,” a parent told the outlet. “Considering we are seeing a lot of adolescents and athletes dying days after getting their COVID shots, it seems they are preparing for this.”

In November, the school district said it opposed a vaccine mandate for students.

“The Gateway Pundit has reached out to the school district for a comment,” the outlet added. “We will update the article as we receive additional details.”

 

read full article here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Technically speaking, it's said that individuals don't evolve, only species evolve (physically,that is...)

Oh sure. Evolve, I meant most advisedly, a metaphor for personal and volitional growth. I'm always doing that -  confusing, I know.

What needs reminding (as I just recalled) is that evolution isn't primarily a process of species adaptation, its driver is mutation. The "freaks", or a random mistake of nature, ¬some¬ times had a survival edge in their changing environments (sudden or gradual) over the main species body, and their genetic line thrived and continued while the others eventually died out. Most practical is nature. Does that fit with your conception of evolution?

What that means to mankind's evolution is fascinating. "We" the species have so well cognitively-physically adapted to and modified our environment to us that my question is: why should we need to evolve - and will we? Would, say, a mutant human with a much bigger brain capacity survive physically any better, enough to become the dominant lineage?

"Adaptation" is itself a metaphor and shorthand for the observable effects of a lo-oong process, I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, anthony said:

... why should we need to evolve?

Tony,

This is where I generally don't understand you.

Asking this question to me is like asking why should we need to eat? Why should we need to have two arms and two legs? Why should we need to cry and laugh?

These are items that belong to the Law of Identity.

Here's the syllogism.

Life forms inherently evolve as part of their nature.
The human species is a life form.
Therefore, the human species evolves as part of its nature.

That's not optional. It just happens. It comes that way. That's part of its identity.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

This is where I generally don't understand you.

Asking this question to me is like asking why should we need to eat? Why should we need to have two arms and two legs? Why should we need to cry and laugh?

These are items that belong to the Law of Identity.

Here's the syllogism.

Life forms inherently evolve as part of their nature.
The human species is a life form.
Therefore, the human species evolves as part of its nature.

That's not optional. It just happens. It comes that way. That's part of its identity.

Michael

I often raise questions for consideration, Michael. I don't offer a definitive answer.

I have a doubt about this basic premise: "Life forms inherently evolve as part of their nature".

SurvivaI necessity is in their nature. Their inherited DNA is passed on.

From anything I've simply learned about evolution, I believe the consensus is that evolution occurs and occurred as the result of changing environments, via mutations. As long as (e.g.) a certain foodstuff was freely available to a species, or - a wet climate favored an animal or bird having long legs in marshlands - (etc.) - there could be no inherent *necessity* for that species to 'adapt' (mutate).

As long as conditions were forever stable, but they have never been, a species would remain unchanged (and so they largely haven't); the mutations would have no natural advantages and not survive.

If you agree with this evolutionary environment-mutation theory, it all follows. Species didn't just evolve without cause and a means. Else, we'd need to pose a grand design at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The  capacity to manipulate our ‘environment’ is a freak adaptation , or the result of multiple random mutations and their eventual expression. Species qua species , that(those) adaptation(s)may be optimally sufficient to rack up points in the longevity category.

Species like sharks and alligators have pretty good runs , could be something to a strategy of being reactive to the environment , after all trade offs are considered .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Navy SEALs Win Major Legal Victory Against Vaccine Mandate, Injunction Issued

A federal district judge granted a preliminary injunction Monday against the enforcement of the Department of Defense’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate against U.S. Navy SEALs.

Thirty-five Navy Special Warfare service members sued President Joe Biden in November 2021 stating that his directive for them to get vaccinated or face possible court martial or involuntary separation violates their First Amendment right to religious liberty and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993).

Texas-based judge Reed O’Connor noted in his order that RFRA specifically provides the, “Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

O’Connor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, determined that the vaccine mandate substantially burdens the SEALs religious beliefs and the government has not shown requiring them to be vaccinated is the least restrictive means for furthering its interest of a healthy fighting force.

“By all accounts, Plaintiffs have safely carried out their jobs during the pandemic. Prior to the vaccine mandate, at least six Plaintiffs conducted large-scale trainings and led courses without incident,” he wrote.

Navy-SEALs.jpg
WWW.WESTERNJOURNAL.COM

A federal district judge granted a preliminary injunction Monday against the enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Even back when I was a tenderfoot in Objectivism, I have always found this position in O-Land, usually implied rather than stated, perplexing and troubling.

Why on earth did humans ever stop evolving for a spell? And now you say evolution not only stopped for a spell, it started again? Really?

Has any other living organism--other than human beings in your view--ever been able to step outside the Law of Identity as concerns life and evolution? 

But wait, there's more.

 

There's the toxic part.

And that is the implication (or often overt position) that man is perfectible.

And why is that toxic? After all, this was Rand's own view. Well, let's use her own logic, the one she used for altruism. If man is to be a self-sacrificial animal, that means someone has to be collecting the sacrifices. 

So, if man is perfectible, that means someone has to be doing the perfecting. And that someone, per Rand's own definition, is imperfect. After all, if something is perfectible, that means it is currently imperfect. Right?

In this view, the imperfect will perfect the imperfect.

What could possibly go wrong?

:) 

 

At the level of the individual (a person perfecting his or her own self), that means man is born with the equivalent of Original Sin. He is born imperfect and has to atone for it by choice (by choosing reason) in order to become perfect, just like the Christian is born imperfect (with Original Sin) and has to choose to believe in Christ, then die to become perfect. The requirement that man is born imperfect and can choose his way out of it is the same in both cases.

Except in Objectivism, man can choose to shed his rotten imperfection while here on earth and in Christianity, he has to choose to shed it here on earth, but has to die to get to perfection.

In both cases, does that sound like reality or fiction? To me, it sounds like people making claims of fact they can never substantiate.

Now let's go to the group level and start perfecting others. Hell, that's just another form of tyranny. Every time perfecting others has been tried on a large-scale, it has ended in a blood-bath with piles and piles of corpses of innocents.

This is what happens when biology is removed from one's view of human nature. 

 

I disagree with this whole approach. I say reality, i.e. human nature, will not be replaced by man's desires, no matter how well-intentioned. Man is what he is, A is A. Man is not an imperfect form of what he should be. Growth, life cycles, and evolution are not optional nor are they imperfect. They are part of the very identity of life.

When my own identity is not good enough to be an identity unless I somehow fix it, I say that idea is existentially flawed, not me. I perfectly exist as I am. My very existence is not part of some ideologically-conceived reject pile unless I repent for existing like that. (Ditto religion-wise.)

 

I also say man never stopped evolving. Evolving and adapting to conditions is inherent in all life, not just humans. Just like being an individual while at the same time being a member of a species are inherent.

For man to stop evolving or to be perfectible, he has to stop being a life form. In other words, bye-bye hierarchical knowledge. Bye-bye concepts and, ultimately, bye-bye observation.

The only way to get there is by faith, not reason.

In other words, in my view, evolution is not the equivalent of the human appendix.

Michael

Lordy!

Perfect or imperfect, take your choice. Neither contradicts what I said. I was thinking of change and betterment. I admit it might not be betterment; it might be debetterment. Rand made a perfect man, but John Galt is a statue doing Howard Roark one better.

In the body or in the head--or both--the changers are at work, one uppering God. Rand tried philosophy. The electro boys (gals?) electronics. The bio-boys are just getting started. Are we on the path to immortality, unless there's an accident? We may not reach the promised land--in fact we won't--but how about 150 for starters?

Maybe these so-self evolved humans will be the new Cro-M mans and the Gro-M mans left behind will suffer the fate of the Neanderthals from them. Who knows?

Except for male-pattern baldness--and what I'm not mentioning--I like me the way I am. Generally speaking, humans are children. I'm an adult. The children is courtesy of biology. Dogs are children, wolves are not. Apes are not. Humans aren't apes, though we once were. Did biology de-evolve us into children? Generally speaking the children are doing quite well. Look at the numbers. What makes me an adult is what's in my head. Call it philosophy, but I was born with my head and my head was always ready for the philosophy so does this make me a superior man from the get go? I think real superiority is measured by other things and it may not be adulthood.

--Brant

Rand complained--I think according to Branden--about living in a world of children. I complain about being ruled by them: hence I'm a republican (not Republican) not a democrat, an idea-er or, as my prof once said: an un-institutionalized intellectual (will intellectuals prevail? I hope not; most are communists)

(I've been drinking)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tmj said:

The  capacity to manipulate our ‘environment’ is a freak adaptation , or the result of multiple random mutations and their eventual expression. Species qua species , that(those) adaptation(s)may be optimally sufficient to rack up points in the longevity category.

T,

Read Howard Bloom. Really.

The Lucifer Principle, then The Global Brain.

I've written about them here on OL. Search and read if the books are too long for ya'. 

But the books will change your entire view of evolution, just as it is changing the view of many evolutionary scientists. They certainly changed my views.

There is nothing freak about it.

btw - Don't read Howard Bloom about Trump and especially avoid his Trump videos. He has one of the worst cases of TDS I have ever seen. And since he's goofy-looking and goofy-acting, he's not only wrong, he makes a weird impact. Seriously, you can even see him drool at times. :) 

How a genius like him can do what he does re Trump is proof positive of Mass Formation Psychosis.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The bio-boys are just getting started. Are we on the path to immortality, unless there's an accident? We may not reach the promised land--in fact we won't--but how about 150 for starters?

Brant,

(I'm riffing around in this post.)

What you are referring to is transhumanism and I will have some ideas on that in another thread. In general, I am for using technology to achieve life extension, better health, enhanced capacities, etc. I am not in favor of discarding the human species and creating a brand new species as many transhumanists now aspire to (and they say it plainly, too). I, also, think they are using the wrong process to find immortality. To use a Peikoff idea, they are "misintegrating" and will likely create a Frankenstein monster without getting anywhere near immortality. More on all this later.

 

On another point, you raise lot of evolution-related questions I am sure were buzzing around in Rand's head back then. At least enough were buzzing for her to write that essay, "The Missing Link," which is most easily found in Philosophy Who Needs It?. She floated the idea that "the anticonceptual mentality" might be the missing link between apes and man. When I look at this idea now, and look at it strictly from an evolutionary perspective, the term itself, "the anticonceptual mentality," is kinda weird. It is like calling a between-species creature that had not fully evolved wings yet an "anti-wing creature." :) 

To use her own terminology based on Aristotle, that term comes from a bias toward "final causation," which she claimed did not exist. (Basically, this is when the end is the cause of all that comes before.) Still, she liked the idea enough to use it as a process in developing fiction plots. So why not use it at other times?

 

9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

... does this make me a superior man from the get go? I think real superiority is measured by other things and it may not be adulthood.

You are scratching the top of the iceberg of one of the real issues with all philosophy and religion. I believe most people go into the different systems of ideas and religions in order to improve themselves. And the rub is that they use the wrong term, they use that damn term "improve." A better term for organic thinking would be "develop" or something along those lines. Why? Because along the way, these systems become signals of superiority for way too many practitioners. And from just looking, many of them are not superior in anything at all. They just think they are. So essentially they keep the signal as their own identity and forego the quest.

Take a look at atrocities throughout history. Or oppression. Do you, like me, see that little bastard present? He's always there. The bastard is people thinking they are superior to other people. I think that is one of the biggest causes of moral crud throughout all humanity.

 

I found in Rand a way to sidestep this crud, that is, pursue my mental and moral development without referring to others. That's what I loved the most about her work in my early days of getting into Objectivism. That is something I still love. But then she threw a monkeywrench into the conceptual purity of this process by adopting the term "social metaphysics" and setting it up as a villain. (Incidentally, as I am sure you know, Barbara came up with that term.--EDIT: Oops. On second thought, I don't think that was Barbara. Her term was psycho-epistemology. :) )

People who study the brain know that many modules, and even the very size of the cortex, evolved to handle and process human interactions. That is the real social metaphysics. Not the weapon she and NB crafted to whip others with, a guilt-inducing whip at that.

I personally think we should not discard the term social metaphysics. Barbara was actually on to something when she suggested it. But it morphed. So I think we should redo it--at least for our own use--to take out the toxic stuff and include all the brain stuff that evolved, or to use a Randian term, clean up the part dealing with "the given." After all, our brains come as they come, not as someone thinks they should come in order to wed with a principle.

 

btw - I envy you your drink. I like drinking, but I just can't do it anymore. :) 

As the saying goes, if I start again, I will end up somewhere four states over with dragon tattoos on my arms and legs, a nasty dog-bite on my nose, newly married to a Philippine store keeper, and I will not have a clue about how I got there.

Put that into your evolutionary pipe and smoke it. Or, how's that for social metaphysics?

:) 

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

...to take out the toxic stuff and include all the brain stuff that evolved, or to use a Randian term, clean up the part dealing with "the given." After all, our brains come as they come, not as someone thinks they should come in order to wed with a principle.

 

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You are scratching the top of the iceberg of one of the real issues with all philosophy and religion. I believe most people go into the different systems of ideas and religions in order to improve themselves. And the rub is that they use the wrong term, they use that damn term "improve." A better term for organic thinking would be "develop" or something along those lines.


Interesting. I think I can see this, in microcosm, in Rand's approval of a famous artist's alteration of a certain muscle, as  human "improvement" from a top-down perspective. (I can't remember the source off-hand, but it was something like, when confronted that the muscle didn't exist, he replied "but it SHOULD have..."


It also brings to mind a quote from Roark in The Fountainhead:

"...I love this earth. That’s all I love. I don’t like the shape of things on this earth. I want to change them.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" I often raise questions for consideration, Michael. I don't offer a definitive answer."

Is what I should have quoted , as my comment was directed at what seemed from Tony to be a somewhat pejorative take on genetic mutation, that stance feels a little normative in respect to a subject , the process of evolution, that as process and contemplation on it are very far removed from the moral judgement realm.

and yeah I like books , even with lots of pages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now