From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Thu Feb 06 2003 - 19:02:21 MST
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> ### The non-personal identity can be a choice, sure, yet it is not
> less or more illusory than any other level. In certain circumstances,
> sentient beings can evolve (or be built, or arrive at by stochastic
> processes) to have non-personal identity attachments, like the
> "tribe", "species", "the Borg". Anything might be possible, yet none
> of these choices have an overriding, meta-ethical validity. Maybe, a
> society built of the perfect altruists will one day outperform and
> displace the conglomerates of cantankerous individuals that exist
> today, maybe not. It's not a question of what should be, but rather
> what works.
>
Yes, I think we're in basic agreement here on that paragraph.
I'm saying that our conventional sense of self, identifying strongly with
whatever is within our own body and within our grasp, and seeing anything
else as Other, often to be defended against, has served us well as we have
evolved.
I'm suggesting that as we move beyond our evolutionary constraints, we will
have the capability to expand our awareness beyond these constraints, and as
our consciousness expands, our sense of individual self will diminish. Many
of us will choose to expand in this manner, because it will provide a vastly
richer experience.
I'm surprised you began and finished your post by referring to ethics. My
understanding is that one can not derive "ought" from "is", and all moral
and ethical choices are ultimately based on local values. The best one can
rationally aim for is consistency. From what did you infer I was making an
ethical judgement?
- Jef
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 06 2003 - 19:04:49 MST