From: Bill Lucy 

In article ,
rgparker{at}west.net says...
MPG.1380e71defcaf449989851{at}news.barkto.com>, note these cogitations
> from blucy{at}mediaone.net Bill Lucy:
> > No, you're not. You believe you are being logical, but you appear to rely
on a
> > typical Randian position -- that emotion has little or no value in making
> > judgments. I don't take that position and never will. The
emotional/unconscious
> > choice for me has provided me with a good life. I don't *have* to make
> > conscious decisions.
>
> Geez, it must be nice to feel free from the need to make conscious
> decisions.

Nice twist. I would suspect that the majority of decisions each of us makes
are unconscious (How do we get to the record store? When do you do the
laundry?). That means that sometimes the best decision is the unconscious
one, else we'd have little time to enjoy ourselves.

> But seriously, the reason that Rand's position makes sense to me is that
> it dovetails so nicely with my own view of emotions which is a
> decidedly biological view. I see them as a product of evolutionary
> forces.

So is intellect, but I don't see that argument being made from your perspective.

> We have all
> sorts of inappropriate emtional reactions in this rather different
> environment.

And we make all sorts of rational decisions which are inappropriate. That
doesn't mean we should ignore the rationale, does it?

> Secondly, they are flawed approximations even in our natural
> environment. Our emotions are not generated by a part of the brain that
> is any more omniscient and all-knowing than the reasoning conscious
> part.

Well, *you* believe that. I, OTOH, accept that many good things happen
because I "allow" them to happen. Or, at the very least, I don't
try to make them happen.

> Thirdly, what behaviors our emotions encourage are designed for survival
> and reproductive success (not just in having kids but in a broader
> sense). Well, are such behaviors really in our personal interest as
> individuals? I mean, I don't want to simply exist to serve my genes
> after all.

I believe they are essential. If you were not so affected by this thread
emotionally, would you even care to respond?


> > *All* of the decisions Elian Gonzalez has made thus far have not been
logical
> > -- they've been emotional. He's been held, he's been given things to play
with,
> > he's been talked to. None of those are "free" choices
from a Randian
> > perspective. Actually, they are decidedly un-Randian.
>
> He's also too ignorant to make rational decisions about what constitutes
> his best interest.

I would substitute "nescient" for ignorant. Ignorance is a
desired state. Nescience is a state before knowledge.

But if he's nescient, it means someone should be acting on his behalf --
and without any evidence to the contrary, I think it should be his father.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5