The nice thing about a Nordic Trainer (R) is that you can get your exercise
without getting your tootsies wet in slushy snow. The same applies to
discussions as to what is individual and what is a unity, which in the end
depends on what the training is worth. [the tread mill for skiiers]
Most things we perceived are particular instances of the external world -
they have some substance. As such they are subject to individuation based
on some attribute we wish to define as a quality. This is important. Since a
discussion is meaningless and unfruitful without proper reference to the
subject and more important to the dimension or realm that the subject
belongs too. There is nothing illogical about ascribing value to an
individual planet on the basis of human action - altruism to the earth and
earth's altruism to her individual organisms whether from anthropogenic
attribution or divine attribute. Whether the earth is sentient or not
sentient is irrelevant - in my opinion it is partially sentient and the
amount of sentience varies spatially and temporally- the important thing is
the result of a social or group action that may arise from a principle that
ascribes perceptive ability to the earth - the earth has a teleology through
her finite organisms - or self reliance. The arguement of whether anything
is an individual or an entity composed of individuals can be flawed or it
can be correct - in this case the earth. In fact the evidence suggests that
the earth is an individual planet, the spheres of water and air and soil are
interconnected, there are no hermetically sealed compartments within and on
the surface of the earth and the earth is subject to the fluxes received
from outer space within and outside the galaxy - as well the reverse is true
of the earth regarding emissions. Most scientists and the average modern
with common sense hold these beliefs to be self evident, even more so than
democratic principles.
The problem of the self - other dichotomy - vis a vis the earth - is purely
with classification and metaphysics [ego, superego]. In the first instance,
the organism may be the basic form that the the particular instance of the
individual is derived from, and from there we can extend organisms into
individual species, subspecies, and metapopulations. From species we
classify species by genus and on and on until we reach the phyla for plants,
animals, fungi, etc. The divisions within the classifications are not
static. The organism may be the basis for the principle of individuation,
but it need not be and it could be the planet earth, or it could be the
galaxy. If you are a astronomer, then the earth and her moon are the basic
instance of the individual. The important thing is to be aware that life
has one common attribute: it is finite as far as we know from experience on
earth. Secondly organisms can intertwined to such an extent that they are
biologically interdependent, ecosystems become complex and form synusae.
John Foster
[log in to unmask]
At 09:47 AM 12/9/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>Okay Bryan, lets start with the obvious. The definition of the word
>individual
>
>individual adj. 1) inseperable 2) a: of, relating to, or distinctively
>associated with an individual <~ turns of phrase that identify his
>writing> b: being an individual or existing as an indivisable whole c:
>intended for one person <an ~ serving> 3) existing as a distinct
>entity: seperate 4) haveing marked individuality <an ~ style>.
>
>individual n. 1) a particular thing as distinguished frin a class,
>species, or collection: as (1) a single human being as contrasted with
>a social group or institution (2) a single organism as distinguished
>from a group b: a particular person 2) a single entity 3) a reference
>of a name or variable of the lowest logical type in calculus.
>
>(from Webster's New Colegiate Dictionary)
>
>then you wrote (and shouted):
>
>> fine, swell, and wonderful indeed..... hmmm, let's see.... if
>i want
>> to consider the planet an individual in the sense that it is a single
>> unit.... you mean like humans are single units? or different than
>that?
>> oh! i see! you mean like a ROCK is a single unit.... again, your
>analogy
>> doesn't hold up.... the criteria are not conclusive in the
>slightest....
>
>Now from the definitions above it is possible to view rocks and humans
>individually. Moreover, you could view various planets individually
>as well. From this perspective you could call the Earth an individual
>or an individual planet.
>
>To point out that humans are single entities as is the planet is a
>truism and contains little useful information. To point out that the
>criterion is not conclusive is exactly what I was claiming in my
>earlier posts pointing out it is a false analogy.
>
>Here is exactly what you wrote (and despite your claims otherwise I
>never *ever* commented on something you [Bryan Hyden] wrote without
>your comments appearing somewhere in the message--that is a blatant
>untruth!):
>
>_____
>>Not that open,
>>Because it's kinda dumb to suggest that a planet covered with googols
>of
>>individual organisms is an individual.
>
>sorry steven, but you did it again... :)
>
>why, just look at us humans.... we are, as you say, "covered with
>googols
>of individual organisms" and are still considered individuals,
>individually....
>
>bryan
>______
>
>Clearly Steven's argument is not sufficient, but neither is your
>counter argument. You then claim I misrepresented your argument,
>which I did to some degree in my first post (although your exact
>comments were in the message and there for all to see--go check the
>damn archive!), however that does nothing to change the fact that your
>statement above is a false analogy. It is a flase analogy because, it
>points to the fact that humans and the planet share a trait and that
>humans can be treated altruistically so why not the planet as well?
>
>Your initial claim was that the planet is an individual and can be
>treated alturistically. Steven Bissel responded that it (behaving
>altruistically) is an individual to individual action, and by
>implication that the planet is not an individual. You are correct
>that the planet is a single entity and in that sense of the definition
>is an individual. However it is far from clear that the planet is
>deserving of being treated altruistically (or that it even can be
>treated altruistically--e.g. can one treat a can of tuna
>altruistically?) on just that basis alone as I point out we can view
>rocks individually and yet we do not talk about treating them
>altruistically.
>
>As for this:
>
>> >> bad assumption... can we only be altruistic to humans? [Bryan
>Hyden]
>> >
>> >Then why did you pose the question about being altruistic to the
>planet? [me]
>
>Sorry, I misread your statement. I switched the 'can we' to 'we can'
>which of course dramatically changes the meaning of your sentence. It
>was unintentional.
>
>I suppose one could pose the following quesiton. If the Earth can be
>treated altruistically then why not another planet such as Mars? Why
>not treat Mars altruistically?
>
>Steve
>P.S. Bryan's original message is found below in its entirety so no
>more of this crap about not including the other person's message.
>
>
>
>---Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >> bad assumption... can we only be altruistic to humans?
>> >
>> >Then why did you pose the question about being altruistic to the
>planet?
>>
>> steve, i think you should read more carefully... as in, actually
>try to
>> understand what i am saying. ok, scroll back up, to what i just cut
>and
>> pasted, and read what i wrote and then what you wrote three times out
>> loud.... go ahead... three times.... ok, in case you didn't do
>it,
>> i'll write it again.... i said, "can we only be altruistic to
>humans?"
>> AS IN..... "can we not also be altruistic to other things (i.e.
>animanls,
>> individuals, ect; and NOT necessarily ROCKS!)" your question
>implied that
>> what i had said above was somehow different than an allusion to the
>idea
>> that we can be altruistic to the planet... if you do not understand
>this, so
>> be it....
>>
>> >> yes.... it is still quite skewed, though not quite as badly as
>> >the first
>> >> time....
>> >
>> >No its not, it is what you put forward.
>>
>> you can try to tell me what i *didn't* say all you want to.... but
>the
>> least you could do would be to go back and find exactly what i said,
>then
>> cut and paste it to include it in your agrument... otherwise you're
>blowing
>> hot air....
>>
>> >As I am pointing out the illogic of concluding that the planet is
>> >itself an individual in the sense discribed above simply because it
>> >shares a similar trait with humans. This is a perfect example of a
>> >false analogy.
>>
>> nope, wrong again..... i wasn't using that analogy to conclude that
>the
>> planet was an individual.... I WAS USING THAT ANALOGY TO SHOW THAT
>YOU
>> CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PLANET IS *NOT* AN INDIVIDUAL BASED ON THAT
>> CRITERIA..... again, you ought to both read more carefully and go
>back and
>> cut and paste, much like i do.... (i.e. if you are going to comment
>on
>> something i said in a post previous to this one, you should go back
>and find
>> that material).
>>
>> As I pointed out, if you want to consider the planet
>> >an individual in the sense that it is a single unit (much like we can
>> >talk about specific rocks, i.e. individual rocks) then fine, swell,
>> >wonderful, but don't try to ascribe some sort of human trait to it
>> >with out a more substantial arguement.
>>
>> fine, swell, and wonderful indeed..... hmmm, let's see.... if
>i want
>> to consider the planet an individual in the sense that it is a single
>> unit.... you mean like humans are single units? or different than
>that?
>> oh! i see! you mean like a ROCK is a single unit.... again, your
>analogy
>> doesn't hold up.... the criteria are not conclusive in the
>slightest....
>> I NEVER SAID THAT I COULD, NOR DID I EVER, GIVE ANY PROOF OR
>REASONING AS TO
>> THE INDIVIDUALITY OF THE PLANET.... however, i did say time and
>again that
>> it could not be proven either way by any means that *i* know of....
>and
>> certainly no one here has changed my mind about THAT! let me
>state that
>> it is my believe that the earth is sentient, and an individual to
>which we
>> can act altruistically... and also that i have no proof of such to
>> offer.... but i delight no end in posing contradictions to anyone who
>> argues that it isn't....
>>
>> bryan
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|