In response to the discussion about the sentience of the Earth versus the
nonsentience of rocks can I suggest that this could be similar to sentience
in humans - a property not found in their bones or, indeed, in any of their
constituent cells and tissues. Sentience, like ecology, is an 'emergent
property' found in wholes but not in any of their parts - and a purely
analytic science, which divides all wholes into their parts to understand
them, is incapable of understanding either phenomenon. [See Gregory
Bateson's "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" and "Mind and Nature" for more on
this.
Robert Vint.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 14 December 1998 19:39
Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
|>Sorry, you are right with regards to rocks, but given that you believe
|>the Earth is sentient without given much in the way of reasons why and
|>your discussion below of this "force", I fail to see how you can
|>delineate between the Earth being sentient and a rock not being
|>sentient except in a arbitrary manner. As in, "I choose to label is
|>sentient, but that is not sentient."
|
|ok, good question... i believe that "a sentient force" interpenetrates
|everything... but when i talk about some*thing* being sentient, as a
human
|is sentient, or a dog is sentient, i mean it in a different way... we
|have a sentience that is separate from this universal force, that is
|individual, our sentience is a subset within the universal sentience... a
|rock, in my opinion, is not an individual subset... it is not
individually
|*aware*, as humans and dogs are... and as i believe the earth to be...
|
|bryan
|
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
|To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
|Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 11:22 AM
|Subject: Re: Is Altruism consistent with environmentalsim?
|
|
|>
|>
|>
|>
|>
|>---Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
|>>
|>> >If the Earth can be sentient with no justifcation or little
|>> >justification for it then so can a rock. I believe that you and
|>Bryan
|>> >are on a slippery slope to having everything being sentient which of
|>> >course renders the word meaningless.
|>>
|>> steve, how many times do i have to ask you to be more careful in not
|>> misrepresenting me? this is getting quite rediculous and i think
|>you are
|>> being frivolous in your consideration towards me and i don't
|>appriciate
|>> it...
|>
|>Sorry, you are right with regards to rocks, but given that you believe
|>the Earth is sentient without given much in the way of reasons why and
|>your discussion below of this "force", I fail to see how you can
|>delineate between the Earth being sentient and a rock not being
|>sentient except in a arbitrary manner. As in, "I choose to label is
|>sentient, but that is not sentient."
|>
|>Steve
|>
|>> i said that i think the earth is sentient... i've also said that i
|>think
|>> rocks are NOT sentient... someone else did and you somehow
|>attributed that
|>> sentiment to both of us... other things that i think are not
|>sentient
|>> include, but are not limited to, plastic, steel, anything that's
|>dead, and
|>> the list goes on... now, to make a further point but to
|>hopefully not
|>> confuse the issue, i DO beleive in a universal awareness (i.e. god,
|>if you
|>> want to call it that) that interpenetrates everything... and i
|>believe
|>> this "force" to be sentient in that nothing would be sentient
|>without it...
|>> i.e. it is the "source of sentience"... now, again, these are
|>things that
|>> i *believe*... it is not my problem (nor do i consider it a
|>problem) that
|>> they (seemingly) cannot be proven...
|>>
|>> bryan
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>
|>_________________________________________________________
|>DO YOU YAHOO!?
|>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
|>
|
|
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|