Steven Bissell wrote:
Brian wrote:
> >
> >Right. I have this to propose, and I'd like to see what any on this list
> >have to say about it. I propose the possibility that there need be no
> >distinction between anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric. If we as
> >humans always acted in our *true* best interests, we would be
> simultaneously
> >be acting in the best interest of everything else. Everything around us in
> >our world would at worst be unaffected. Of course this leaves a huge
> >definition of our "true best interests" to be defined, which I readily
> admit
> >I'm not prepared to do, and which I suspect may not be able to be done,
> >though I don't rule it out.
>
Steve responded: If you are saying that is some instances it is "best"
for me to sacrifice my
> own life for my own best interests, I'd like so see how? I think there is a
> much more complex definition of "self interest," ala Stephen Kellert
> _Kinship to Mastery_, but no matter what, I have an evolutionary obligation
> to protect myself/near relations/species at the expense of others.
>
Dreamer adds: Is it so hard to believe sacrificing one's life can be in
one's own best interests? To acknowledge that something "outside" or
"other" is as important or
more important than yourself is what makes your life worth living.
Instances are commonplace: the willingness to die for a child, loved one
or country. Likewise some individuals would not hesitate to sacrifice
their individual lives to save some other species. The act of opening
ourselves individually or collectively to larger harmonies or larger
goods will often seem at first like a sacrifice, a loss. But it is a
loss by which we gain. When slaveholders formally recognize the
humanity of an enslaved race, when men first admit the equality of
women, they initially fear giving up some power or advantage, but they
actually gain a fuller, richer identity for themselves. When one
generation of a society sacrifices some of its wealth and convenience
for the benefit of future generations, it wins for itself a greater
sense of purpose and value. When a species (or an individual therein)
can allow itself to feel and honor its kinship with other species, that
species (or individual) allows itself to become aware of a beautiful
dance going on all around, and to join the dance, and to smile.
Bryan
> >Going a little towards the metaphysical deep end here, I believe that the
> >universe is intrinsically harmonious. We as humans are different in the
> >sense that we have the free will (yes, sounds religious doesn't it) to
> >either be harmonious or to be non-harmonious with the rest of the
> harmonious
> >universe. Being harmonious is in our best interest. That last sentence
> >sums up my argument in a highly simplified way.
> >
>
> What if you're wrong and the Universe is chaotic and random? Where does that
> leave you?
> Bissell
Dreamer: I look around my room right now, and out my window, and at
your words. There may be some randomness and some chaos. I hope so.
Magic comes in part from randomness and chaos. There is also much
pattern and order. We may appreciate and honor them both, and the
harmony between them. For instance, rivers are meant to flood with
turbulence, chaos and destruction, and we ought not to be too eager to
dam and control them. Their chaos is part of nature's order. It may be
that our species' intermeddling, our stupid conceipts, greediness, and
selfishness are part of nature's order also. I don't know. But I think
that with all our technological attempts to be bigger and stronger than
nature, we just make ourselves smaller. And I think that, as a species,
we'd be doing ourselves a big favor if we surrendered to Brian's
harmony, in our own anthropocentric best interests.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|