>>If instead you are referring to the
>>specific definition of a human being as "an end in and of themselves," I
>>disagree: I have seen no effects attributable to that meme other than the
>>rise of existentialism and nihilism. A literal interpretation of the meme
>>suggests that (1) I don't have to do anything unless I want to do it, and
>>(2) there is nothing which can dictate what I want to do except my own
>>thoughts.
To which Tad replied...
>(1) What do you "have to do" which you don't want (except paying taxes,
>which you can also avoid by not working)?
To reply within the context of the quoted post: by "want" I mean a
conscious realization that something would be beneficial to or enjoyable for
me. If a human being is an end in and of themselves, then any biological /
unconscious tendencies to live for the benefit of the species or subgroup
(or die for it, as I mentioned in my last post: ref. Bloom's _Lucifer
Principle_) are illusory. I find that this does not mesh with the data
forming the body of sociobiology.
>(2) What is it that you believe dictates what you want?
To reply within the context of the quoted post: conscious intention.
Again, I find that this conflicts with what I know about neurology,
sociobiology, NLP, psychology, etc.
Perhaps I should have enclosed my interpretations in quotes. My
intent in giving them was to demonstrate that the "ends in and of
themselves" meme contained two other memes regarding the origin of human
behavior, and in so doing show that these memes produce sociotypes that are
contrary to the Objectivist sociotype. To wit, nihilists and existentialists.
Which suggests a topic for discussion:
What is more damaging to successful memetic engineering: logical
inconsistency or sociotypical inconsistency (memetic complexes producing
sociotypes different from what they intend to produce)? Why?
SGK
Editor, The Stygian Forge -- http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5380 or
http://www.netforward.com/DeathsDoor/?argos
Member: Order of the Jarls of Baelder @ http://www.student.hk-r.se/~tb96der/
Contemporary renaissance futures @ http://www.seraph.org/