>SGK wrote:
>
>> If a human being is an end in and of themselves, then any biological /
>>unconscious tendencies to live for the benefit of the species or subgroup
>>(or die for it, as I mentioned in my last post: ref. Bloom's _Lucifer
>>Principle_) are illusory. I find that this does not mesh with the data
>>forming the body of sociobiology.
>
>Doesn't acknowledging the fact that we are, in a sense, collectivist
>animals, help us in terms of our own self-interest? It's like, cells
>surviving by joining and teaming up with other cells.
In part, yes. However, being collectivist animals, we will also at
times act against our own best interests. People contemplating suicide, for
example, often do so because they feel that it will benefit others (e.g.,
"I'm too much of a burden to my friends, they'd be better off without me,"
etc.).
>> "ends in and of
>>themselves" meme contained two other memes regarding the origin of human
>>behavior, and in so doing show that these memes produce sociotypes that
>are
>>contrary to the Objectivist sociotype. To wit, nihilists and
>existentialists.
>> What is more damaging to successful memetic engineering: logical
>>inconsistency or sociotypical inconsistency (memetic complexes producing
>>sociotypes different from what they intend to produce)? Why?
>Can you give an example of a sociotypical inconsistency without logical
>inconsistency?
Isn't the Objectivist statement an example of this, at least at a
superficial level? "Ends in and of themselves" does suggest that individuals
are objective entities, whole and absolute and self-determined. It is only
when the trojan horse effect pops up (due to the interaction of the meme
with human psychology) that the sociotypical inconsistency occurs.
SGK
Editor, The Stygian Forge -- http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5380 or
http://www.netforward.com/DeathsDoor/?argos
Member: Order of the Jarls of Baelder @ http://www.student.hk-r.se/~tb96der/
Contemporary renaissance futures @ http://www.seraph.org/