What follows is a definition of trans-kin altruism.
At 02:43 PM 12/14/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>>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
Exactly. A rock can be a simple lump of clay, or it can be the "blarney"
stone, or it could be a diamond ring. The point is that in terms of symbolic
representation, a rock can be endowed with as many qualities as there are
qualities. The motivational and archtypal properties of a rock are immense.
This is not a simple subject that can be dismissed by empirical science
alone. An archtype penetrates various realms or dimensions of the
understanding "poetically" - if we use the Heideggerian definition of
poetics as "building, dwelling, thinking" and since I have probably lost
some readers by now, I will add that the belief in the existence of
different realms or dimensions of meaning has been around for at least 3
thousand years. All symbolic writing since the beginning of the use of an
alphabet contains ample evidence and indicates for instance that a rose is
not a simple rose - plant like any other -but an archtype that penetrates
various realms unto a center where the self is located. Hence the
"rosicucian", philosophorum rosarium, of the alchemitsts. So as such there
is really no true division between the self and the external world, they
interpenetrate. If we are reluctant to believe this, then try sensory
deprivation out. Most people end up hallucinating. Without the external
world there would be no self. This is the basis for transcendentalist
veiwpoint that we are a historical being subject to emanations, with
different symbolic representations, and interpretive meanings.
Trans-kin altruism is a form of altruism that provides an evolutionary
justification for the existence of common property goods. If humans had no
biological explanation for altruism beyond the family, the everything would
be owned by families as a result of the selfish gene. This is not the case
even in the most densely populated places in the world, so there must be
some explanation: trans-kin altruism which is the basis for good intentions
to neighbours and strangers.
The property of "trans-kin altruism" is such that it's power may extent to
the insensitive, a rock for instance could possess powers to become
altrustic, if only at the symbolic level. More importantly altruism is a
non-rational property or phenomenon. Specifically trans-kin altruism is a
type of universal form of consciousness. Bryan is quite correct in this
regard. Even from the perspective of different dimensions.
jmf
"flintstone"
jmf
>
>-----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
>>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
