From: [email protected]


In article <[email protected]>,
  [email protected] wrote:
>
> Mick:
>
> On rereading one of my post, I noticed I used the phrse...
>
>   most occasions of physical selfishness are actually occasions of
>   emotional selfishness.
>
>   I meant to say most occasions of physial selfLESSness (physical
>   sacrifice for others) are occasions of emotioanl selfishness.

Yep. I got that.

> Also.  Maybe this will give you a quicker tie in with the relationship
> between rationality and emotional disorder (catastrophic loss of
> self-worth, self-significance, etc.).
>
> When you walk across the street, and a truck is about to run you
> over, an illusion exists, one which must be maintained if you
> are going to keep yourself alive.  The truck is real, you are
> real, and the truck is really about to run you over.  The
> illusion is that what is about to occur is a profoundly
> significant event.

So... you're counting this as an illusion in the sense that, from an
'objective' perspective (or 'rational'?), we're all insignificant in the
big picture and any individual going under a truck is unlikely to make
much of a dent in the cosmos, yes? This begs the question of what
'significant' means. After all, from the selfish gene's point of view the
_only_ important thing is its own replication so being hit by a truck is
as significant as you can get. Wouldn't it be rather hard to argue that
'significant' means much to a human being in other-than-human terms?
Anyway, the selfish gene maintains in us the illusion of our own
significance, yes?

Its keeping one's self thinking it is
> a profoundly significant event which keeps human hopping
> about with needs for love, acceptance, recognition, achievement,
> etc.  In other words, they are increaseinly in need of
> REASONS for believing in their own importance.

Okay... so the more 'objective' or 'rational' we get the more we realise
that we're not significant in how the universe operates which contradicts
the essential point the selfish gene wants us to believe, leaving us
rather miserable at the contradiction, and we have to scrabble around to
justify the selfish gene's dogma? The objectivity or rationality gives us
the many benefits of analysis and technique but has the downside of
making blithe naturally-driven high self-esteem extremely questionable so
we try to find other ways to justify it?

Mick.
--
"Many a mickle makes a muckle".
[email protected]
[email protected]


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.