Michael Ragland wrote:

> Since I believe you have erroneously referred
> to ego-related needs when you should have been referring to naturally
> selected aggression as the primary mechanisms for my aforementioned
> destructive examples of human nature I don't think modifying naturally
> selected aggression in humans would result in a pride of lions. It's
> true that in "some" parts of the word natural selection doesn't result
> in the struggle for material needs it did in the evolutionary past but
> what you fail to appreciate is the same traits which were chosen by
> natural selection are still functional in the "modern world". 

I agree.  I just happen to think that these primitive instincts were
originally designed to service physical needs and now are more
often than not being called upon to perform a service for which
they were never originally intended, i.e., the defense of emotional
turf (dignity, self-worth, respect, etc.).  This sort of co-opting
of a previous adaptation in the service of a new kind of need
is more the rule than the exception, at least according to Gould.
Its referred to as "exaptation".  You might want to check out 'The
Spandrels of St Marcos' on this.  Its an interesting read.

> Also, we
> are a different animal than a lion, chimpanzee, etc. Like them we were
> imprinted by natural selection with aggression but since we are a
> different species are behavior isn't going to be identical.
> Nevertheless, as many past historical events in the past such as the
> Holocaust and many even today attest our capacity for aggressive
> behavior is enormous (limitless in some cases) and it has no
> evolutionary adaptiveness to our species. 

That's because it is being employed to perform a function for
which it was never originally designed, i.e., the defense of
emotional turf rather than physical turf, IMHO.  The result
is endless rounds of retribution, whereas in other species
the aggression stops the moment their is no longer a possibility
for an immediate physical payoff.

> 
> And let me tell you about ego-related emotional needs. Einstein once
> said the greatest freedom a person can have is to be free from one's
> self. Being attached to one's ego is a form of slavery in my opinion.
> Everybody has one but egoism is prevalent is the world and it has
> damaging effects. 

I think you may be confusing egoism with egotism, Mike.  We
need a healthy ego to function, at least as I am using the term.

> I don't respond to you just because I want to
> intellectually compete with you. Frankly, your style of writing is
> horrible to read through and only John Edser is just as bad. But if I
> try hard enough I can begin to understand some of what you're saying.
> 

Appreciate the feedback.  I honestly had no idea, although
you did mention confusion over terms such as "red-shifted",
"valuative objectivity", "valuative profile" and the like.
I usually assume they are pretty much self-explanatory, but
I may be wrong.

> 
> You seem twisted to me Phil. You've twice mentioned the Palestinian
> plight and have made it fairly clear you don't side with the Israelis.

I've expressed what I construe as the point of view of the terrorists
to argue that "noble" is often in the eye of the beholder.  I have
not presented my own opinion on the Arab/Israeli conflict since I
don't consider it sufficiently informed to waste other people's
time with it.

> 
> You write, "I believe, that among other things, the need for self worth
> includes needs for love, attention, religion, moral integrity, power,
> wealth, purpose, meaning, autonomy, justice." Please tell me how the
> terrorist assault and blowing up of the school in Russia by so-called
> Chechyna "rebels" entailed self-worth? For the sake of
argument lets say
> they wanted attention and power. 

You seemed to have overlooked the right to self-determination (autonomy).

     "Give me liberty or give me death" (Nathan Hale).

> 
> PR:
> Take away ego-related need, and I believe we would have the same
> motivations that govern behavior in a pride of lions, another social
> species at the top of the food chain. Once they have filled their
> bellies and screwed their mates, they have nothing to do but lay around
> snapping at an occasional fly or two. We can't do that, because we have
> an appetite they don't have, our insatiable lust for self-significating
> experience.
> 
> MR:
> In principle I don't have a problem with self-signifigating experience.
> But I think we should think about others and not just ourselves. I have
> a problem with a terrorist killing people being a self-signifigating
> experience...

      "Terrorism is the result of poverty.  Not a poverty
       of material things, but a poverty of dignity"
       (The consensus reached on a recent PBS documentary
        on terrorism as expressed by a prominent Egyptian
        philosopher).


Cheers!

PR
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/5/04 6:29:12 AM