So you'd agree that a rock can also be altruistic? Wow so I wasn't
that far off. <grin>
Steve
---John Michael wrote:
>
> Yuppers! You betcha I agree. The only thing alive in an ancient
redwood is
> the cambium and in the winter it is about one cell thick. It would
take a
> person the rest of their lifetime to count all the rest of the dead
cells in
> a living tree. Also redwood have the largest cells of any plant.
Tracheids
> are about the biggest they get. Altruism requires dead and alive
sentience.
> Of course you realize that dead things once lived and they have not
been
> dead for ever - I guess you know that.
>
> jon
>
> >John,
> >
> >Let me see if I understand your claim here. You are claiming that
the
> >Earth is altruistic towards its many organisms, and that sentience of
> >the Earth is irrelevant to this claim. Does this mean that a dead
> >tree that provides shelter to some small furry animal is also
> >altruistic? I would think that altruism would require some level of
> >sentience.
> >
> >Steve
>
> ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY FOR BUTTERFLY: A press release from Luna Media
> Services announced the one-year anniversary of Julia "Butterfly"
Hill's
> occupation of an ancient redwood tree and to protest logging of the
> remaining stands of ancient forests. Since December 10, 1997, Julia
> has lived 180 feet above the ground in a 1000-year old redwood tree
she
> named Luna. Activists will be holding a rally on December 12, in
> Stafford, California to celebrate the anniversary and protest
continued
> logging in the Headwaters forest.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> GrassRoots Environmental Effectiveness Network (GREEN)
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >---John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_________________________________________________________
> >DO YOU YAHOO!?
> >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|