From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 08:46:06 MST
Gasbag writes
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Disbelieving in belief - a variant - Postscript
>
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > Even in values, it is unwise [as Brett has pointed out] to
> > say "Blah, blah blah, and blah. This is what I BELIEVE!",
> > e.g., "It is horrible and obscene and cruel and therefore
> > WRONG for a woman to cut the arms off her daughter, and
> > THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE", completely shutting oneself down
> > to further critical inquiry and pursuit of consistency.
>
> An example comes to mind:
>
> ---------
> "I BELIEVE that "human life" begins at conception, therefore,
> "therapeutic cloning" should not be permitted *even* if it could
> be shown that the lives of many sick people would be saved by it".
> ---------
Yes, but in fairness to the anti-abortionists, it should
be noted that this example is hypothetical. I don't ever
remembering seeing any of them use this wording, and
therefore reveal themselves as suffering this problem.
True, many of them seem to act as though this is how
they are thinking---but on the other hand, there are
many reasoned defenses of the anti-abortionist stand.
> This example doubles up two of the unwholesome trinity of bad
> meme-words "believe" and "human life".
But can't you think of innocent sentences that contain those
concepts (the innocent form of the "I believe" one, anyway)?
As I said earlier, I think that one must read between the
lines, and be on the lookout for bad concepts, and that the
particular words employed aren't a reliable guide.
> *If* the stakes were not so high, it would almost be comic that the,
> "true believers" defense of "human life" leads to an increase in
> the chances of actual persons (sick people) dying earlier and harder
> than they otherwise might have.
The burden of proof is definitely on them to suggest how
it could be that allegiance to human life or living could
result in banning, for example, stem cell research. But
we do know what they'd say; it would be something like
"When you understand that (a) human life really begins at
conception and (b) politically, the use of stem cells will
inevitably lead to the sacrifice of many innocents, then
you will understand that suppressing this evil really is
better for human life and human persons in the long run."
Of course you and I balk at the idea of 10^-4 seconds
before conception there is zero (0) persons and 10^-4
seconds following conception there is one (1) fully
equal human being. AND THAT'S WHERE OUR REAL DIFFERENCES
WITH THEM LIE! Not in word usage (this time).
> But then the "true believers" don't really believe the dead are "dead"
> and they are often quite willing to act on that "belief" and implement
> policy consistent with it if they can. And policy that becomes law
> applies to everyone.
Again, I see nothing semantically wrong with their belief.
If I thought that the fact was that there is a Supreme Being
who'd deliver the actual consciousness of dead people to
Heaven, then I'd have no objection to what they claim. It's
only an *ontological* difference I have with them, not a
semantic one.
(By the way, there is a huge difference between terminological
disputes, which are comparatively trivial, and semantic ones
which involve concepts. Korzybski's general semanticists have
succeeded in spreading the correct memes concerning the latter IMO.)
> [This was my last post for today - as I am officially over quota.]
>
> Brett
> [the gasbag]
Well..., perhaps conciseness has never been your long suit ;-)
so to speak. But your ability to focus and penetrate on important
matters more than makes up for it!
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST