From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 




[email protected] wrote:
> 
> In article <[email protected]>,
>   [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Probably because you have grown very accustomed to the idea that
> > natural selection is supposed to be a PHYSICAL theory, whereas
> 
> I think of it as a theory regarding the persistence of attributes - those
> attributes cannot be simply summarised as 'physical' to me and the theory
> does not account for all attributes which persist. "rationality" doesn't
> make a lot of sense to me because I've never grasped a detailed
> definition of it which made sense to me.
> 

Understand your skepticism.  I am simply supposing that 'feelings of worthlessness'
may be the key to the door to a better understanding of a hypothetical X which
makes humans different (the rational anaimal, etc.).

> > I am supposing it can be employed as a starting point for a
> > psycho-philosophical theory of human nature.  This takes some
> > getting used to, but the fact that Dawkins has acknowledged
> > the need for an addendum to natural selction (a memetics) should
> > give you at least some sympathy for the possiblity that I might
> > not be completely off the beam here.
> 
> Well, it has struck me before that I don't understand how behaviour is
> encoded genetically...
> 

We don't really have to.  All we have to know is what the theory predicts,  look 
for an anomaly, and offer an explanation.  Or at least that's Tom Kuhn's thesis.

> >
> > Metaphorically, its a phrase [holistic rationality] which refers to my 
> > conclusion that
> > 'being rational' is not a matter of 'being efficient' (the means/
> > end theory), or a matter of 'maximizing self-interest' (egoism),
> > and certainly not a matter of 'being logical' (computationalism),
> > but simply a matter of 'being able to "see" what is going on'.
> 
> Okay, this seems very much like the views of various Eastern systems and
> of some American Indian systems whereby you have to be 'in tune with'
> reality rather than have a reductionist understanding of it in order to
> be mentally/emotionally stable. Most spiritual traditions seem to have
> something like this, as far as I know.
> 

But different in the sense that I am supposing that it entails, not merely
epistemic/cognitive objectivity, but valuative objectivity as well.  Normally,
this wouldn't be a problem, but given that we are naturally selected organism
"designed" to survive, its like trying to play Carnegie Hall with a five watt
guitar amplifier.  So there's a difference, in that the mystics believe this
is a good thing to have happen to you, whereas I'm supposing we simply don't 
have the neurological stomach for it.  Holistic rationality is an ideal none 
of can attain, nor would want to, if I'm not mistaken, which is just another
way of saying that it can become maladaptive if not taken in moderation. 

> > Less metaphorically, I am simply supposing that 'being rational'
> > is a matter of 'being objective'.  But here's the catch.  I
> > am supposing that it is true, not only with regard to the objectivity
> > of one's beliefs (not their justification, by the way, but their
> > correctness, completenesss, etc.), but THE OBJECTIVITY (impartiality)
> > OF ONE'S VALUES as well.  That's where the claim that you can be too
> > rational comes in, in that I am supposing that you can be too
> > valuatively objective
> 
> 'too valuatively objective' for what? For your own health or sense of
> well-being? 

To be adaptive, and as such, for you to be in a state of comfort when you
are thinking contrary to mamma nature's wishes (the PAIN of worthlessness).

> What if this is an evolutionarily acceptable element of
> psychological development - ie, if you can withstand the 'too valuatively
> objective' stage for long enough you come out the other side _stronger_
> in 'rationality' and this counts as an evolutionary advantage?
> 

Actually, that's sort of what I think I did.  My theory is the result of
having three nervous breakdowns by the time I was 23, and in intense disastisfaction
with the "theories" of the phenomenon currently on the books.  These days, as a 
result of my understanding of my disorder, I think I've become something of an
emotional Hercules.  But that's a whole different newsgroup, eh?

> > when it comes to the value you attach to yourself,
> > and experience a catastrophic loss of self-esteem, resulting in
> > sucide, depression, etc.  IOW, I am supposing that emotional
> > disorder is not a physiological malfunction of the brain (although
> > that too is involved in many cases), but rather a
> > VALUATIVE DISORDER, or at least that a valuative component is a
> > significant aspect of emotional disorder -- that 'feelings of
> > worthlessness' lie at its core and are not a symptom of emotioanl
> > disorder (DSM III) but its CAUSE (a loss of the will to survive,
> > which in man is synonymous with the value he attaches to himself).
> 
> You think this would apply to just about _all_ non-physiological
> disorders? Some seem to be based on extraordinary feelings of immunity to
> pain, or fearlessness, or superiority and so on... are you presuming all
> these are compensatory? That honestly doesn't seem likely. Your
> suggestion would be a reasonable possibility to consider (IMO) for
> depression and various other things which seem to diminish functioning
> but there's a lot more to the list of disorders than those.
> 

Wouldn't care to speculate too far.  Certainly schizophrenia looks largely
physiologically based.  Mostly, I would say ALL forms of mental and emotional
disorder have a genetic, a chemical, and a valuative/environmental component,
but all to varying degrees, as well as varying from individual to individual.

> >
> > Yes.  This is the beliefs part, the theoretical rationality of Kant,
> > and whole enchilada for Hume.  It is contrasted with practical rationality,
> > which refers, not to the rationality (actually the objectivity in
> > my theory) of beliefs, logic, etc.
> > but the rationality of action.  And, then too, within the domain of
> > the rationality of action we have a further bifurcation in which their
> > is the matter of the rationaity of means (e.g., instrumental values)
> > and the ratioality of the
> > ends (intrinsic values).
> >
> > This theory is a deduction from my attempt to account
> > for the evolutionary anomaly of 'feelings of worhtlessness' in nature's
> > most rational naturally selected species.
> 
> I'm still not convinced that this is reasonably described as an anomaly.
> Why can't 'feelings of worthlessness' be decribed analogously with
> 'feelings of hunger'? 

The PAIN of the worthlessness IS ANALAGOUS to hunger. The cause of hunger
isn't itself 
adaptive, its an emergency that nature is trying to motivate the organism to
correct for its continued existence, etc.  Its just that, unlike yourself,
I don't think the worthlessness itself has been deliberately incorporated 
and selected for, but rather is being TOLERATED and a necessary premium nature
has to pay for having a rational species to do her bidding (at least when and
if they find surviving to be worth doing).


> They are evolutionarily selected becaue by having
> them we seek 'worth' which means we're more likely to keep ourselves
> alive and more likely to reproduce since we'll be more attractive to the
> opposite sex.
> 

Feeling worthwhile and confident is actually more likely to get you a mate,
I would think.  

  "Its not about the mountain.  Its what the mountain tells you about
   yourself" (Edmund Hillary).

> > It flows from that explanation,
> > and puts epistemic, valuative, and strategic rationality in a new light,
> > in that you no longer treat rationality as a strategic attribute, in
> > which your rationality correlates with your efficiency with achieveing
> > and end, but rather with the extent you cognitive and valuative
> > profiles approach objectivity (correctness and completeness for beliefs,
> > impartiality for values).
> 
> I think the latter is a wiser understanding of rationality but I don't
> know that it's very different to the sort of generalised wisdom that it
> can be painful to learn about life and a relief to limit your reasoning
> and information.
> 

That's pretty much what I'm saying here.  As a psychotherapy, you would continue
to pursue self-worth enhancing data, only you would do it a little less seriously,
a little more tongue in cheek, realizing that you can never "prove" what you are
trying to prove (the center of the universe would be nice), but that you have 
to continue doing it nonetheless, in order to keep from REALIZING a truth you
already know.  Its crazy, but what else would you expect from a "design" process 
which is blind and mechanical.  You use the limitations of your nervous system
to your beneifit, by coming to understand the dynamics of normalcy, etc. (e.g.
blatent selfishness is ususally self-defeating in its emotioanl effects).


-- 

                  Phil Roberts, Jr.

       The Psychodynamics of Genetic Indeterminism:
Why We Turned Out Like Captain Kirk Instead of Mr. Spock
     http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/dada/90/