Re: meaning of life

From: Michael Lorrey (
Date: Tue Jan 23 2001 - 15:19:20 MST

denis bider wrote:
> > The rest of the world functions on the delusion that
> > 'society' is some living entity
> I believe society _is_ a living entity. A pretty dumb one, but I think it
> could be construed as being alive. (In the sense of an ant colony or a bee
> hive, for instance.)

Sorry, doesn't compute.
Just because it *resembles* a living organism does not make it one. You
might as well go out and form the PETMO, the People for the Ethical
Treatment of Memetic Organisms, and see if YOU don't get laughed at.
Hives are not single organisms, despite the best efforts of socialist
scientists to claim it is so. A

> Naturally, the 'group entity' only behaves as a living thing, but it is
> merely a system; it does not 'live' in the strict sense of the word. But if
> something acts as if it is alive, then I see no reason to insist, like you
> seem to, that it is "_NOT_ alive, because I _DON'T_ want to see it as
> something that is alive".

I don't not want to see it as alive. Its rather obvious that its not a
living organism. Humans have developed technologies based on their
observation of nature, of systems that work well. Just because human
technologies resemble natural systems doesn't make them alive in any way
shape or form. Carrying your claim further, you might as well claim a
whole ecosystem is one organism. It is not, despite the semantic games
of 'gaia theory' tree hugging nutjobs.

> We already have large numbers of such 'group entities', and they are of the
> most ordinary kind - businesses, armies, and even entire countries. We all
> actively participate in them - the only person I could think of that doesn't
> participate in any 'group entity' would be someone living alone on an island
> somewhere, with little or no interactions to any other human being.
> So, whether you accept it or not, you _are_ a part of a 'living' organism.
> You are but a tiny cell in it. The organism takes care of you, and you make
> your own tiny contributions to the organism. Actually, you most probably
> actively participate in more than one such organism. As do I.

Actually, no. I'm self employed. I am perfectly capable of, and do on
occasion, support myself separate from all human civilization. Being a
cell is far more than just being a participant in a system. A cell is a
unit that is entirely dependent on the organism for its survival, where
it cannot survive outside the organism. Humans do not meet this
criteria. This is another example of you being infected by socialist

> > It is not surprising that the idea of the sovereign individual
> > is under assault even here in the US. The last century of
> > immigration by people infected by socialist memes to the US
> > has created our culture war.
> I think you are starting to repeat yourself. Not only that, you seem to talk
> about 'people infected with memes' as if you were totally free of them.

I didn't say that, I said "people infected by socialist memes". I am not
infected with such memes. Any memes I may have are what Barnes calls the
'freecyber' type described in his novels. They are beneficial parasites,
like the flora in my gut, the mites on my skin and hair, etc. They do
not subsume my individuality to some imagined greater organism.

And so what if 'society' IS an organism. If we buy the left's premise of
rights being based on force, then any individual is entirely within
their rights to wage all out war against socialist societies. Nuke'em,
fry'em, smoke'em.

> > Man has natural rights because he has evolved under the laws
> > of physics and biology to be the creature he/she is.
> This statement makes 0 sense to me. I see no logical structure to it. It
> sounds like "man has rights because he is". Have you ever even defined what
> the term 'rights' means?
> Perhaps we should start with that: if you disagree with the 'rights by
> negotiation' definition that was proposed, why don't you come up with your
> own definition of 'rights'? One that does not result in a circular
> reference, preferrably.

The human animal evolved with the ability to speak and communicate with
others of his species, the ability to record thoughts and understand
those recorded thoughts, to freely choose other humans to associate with
in a manner not dictated by pheromones, or due to clone clans like
hives, or colonies like coral. The human animal evolved "not with the
claw, fang, stinger, or horn, but with the hand, thus any tool or weapon
which he may fashion or wield with the hand it is his natural right".
Because of his ingenuity in making tools, man is naturally able to
multiply the efficiency of his effort and store food, tools, shelter,
and raw materials for later use at need, it is man's natural right to
own property. As man evolved to survive best when he/she treated his
fellow humans with respect and trust, to not initiate force upon fellow
humans, but to swiftly defend themselves, their families and property
against those who violated this trust.

These rights are not negotiated, they are objectively observed from
nature as an optimum state and applied as a standard of behavior.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:24 MDT