Very much enjoying this fine thread of thought.
Do humans of a particular Cultural normative perspective (intuitional function, social value structure) have a right to maintain their Culture?
I ask this question with regard to what are commonly referred to (by E. Michael Jones, and more widely) as The Culture Wars. This specifically in relation to the increasing polarization in society, driving all to conflict, as this type of conflict ends up in Moral Outrage as the endpoint, and either Violence, or Separation, in order to resolve the underlying social tensions, (which Professor Carrol Quigley named to be the Tensions of Evolution in his 1961 The Evolution of Civilizations).
Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to cause you to consider the question...
High Regards,
BHW
Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. - This email is private and copyrighted by the author.
On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 11:53:51 AM MST, Bruce Alderman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.On the general topic of non-human intelligence and rights, this is an interesting recent article on possible 'fungal languages':
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__apple.news_Ar8E3jX09QbKKt-2DPbEeyXGQ&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=TygeOICT533wk5htr3Q5rLEi2AQcXXF0XONpwW7sFiI&s=yNCBpHOZ5Xy0aem36U59A7BeBQNCh8gnm2-r44eQOrY&e=
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:16 AM Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.GH It also states that because of the dynamics of justification, the “dividing line” between human persons and nonpersons legally is going to be very complicated, slippery and fraught with dangers, and so I do support erring on the side of inclusiveness. However, I certainly would not consider a zygote a human person, either legally or, of course, as having the capacities therein. But the line when and where the necessary capacities is complicated and we need to be clear what language game we are playing (legal or UTOK or seeking a universal morality)?
This is good.
Of interest to me is the use of state institutions of class oppression, at the cost of social expenditure of resources/opportunities, to oppress categories of human beings. In some terms, this is the criminalization of behavior, which is reasonable/acceptable (to most, I assume).
Of great concern is the utilization of those same institutions of class oppression for the purpose of externalizing the environmental demand for individual adaptation, thus privatizing gain (for the individuals) and socializing (externalizing) adaptive costs (to the society at large, and segments in specific).
BHW
Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. - This email is private and copyrighted by the author.
On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 07:55:14 AM MST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Tjarlz,
My basic argument is that one can make a generalizable case for a connection between value and complexification. That is, we can start with the assertion that things will tend to value themselves. But that in and of itself does not give rise to a general theory of value. From it, we can then say that humans value themselves (individually or as a species) as a consequence. But that is too simplistic an assertion for me.
I value an oak tree over a rock. And I value a dog over an oak tree. Why? I think an argument can be made that there is a connection between complexification and value. Consider, for example, Sam Harris and his “moral landscape argument” which says that there is a fundamental, universal value that can be found in the well-being of sentient creatures.
The bottom line point here is that I think there is an argument to be made pertaining to ethical-valuation that legitimizes the value of human persons as a function of the kind of conscious/experiential/self-awareness they exhibit. From a UTOK perspective, this is what grants the argument for human exceptionalism and granting humans a fundamental dignity. It also states that because of the dynamics of justification, the “dividing line” between human persons and nonpersons legally is going to be very complicated, slippery and fraught with dangers, and so I do support erring on the side of inclusiveness. However, I certainly would not consider a zygote a human person, either legally or, of course, as having the capacities therein. But the line when and where the necessary capacities is complicated and we need to be clear what language game we are playing (legal or UTOK or seeking a universal morality)?
Best,
Gregg
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]>On Behalf Of D Charles Williams
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 9:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Animal rights within UTOK via ToK
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Gregg,
We care about hassles because they obstruct the via negativa.
Talking about things on the road… The quolls won’t ever construct an argument as to why the child should be run over in it their place (or they haven’t done so for the past 4,000,000 years). Whereas the child has the potential for justifying why it would be better to run over the dog, and this capacity makes it more valuable? I think Singer might ask, what if it is a severely disabled child without that potential?
I am more inclined to argue that we are innately speciesist, not on the basis of arbitrary self-interest (or myth), but because that’s what species do. The species that are not sufficiently speciesist (and/or powerful) don’t get to remain being a species. Poor quolls.
Cheers,
tjarlz
On 5 Apr 2022, at 8:28 pm, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks, Tjartz.
First, why should we care about hassles? The question is offered to ask why we should care about anything, including pragmatics or even pain for that matter.
Second, yes, you are correct re the normative function of dignity, well-being and integrity, and how we can do basic 1:1 mapping. And you are also correct that things get complicated quickly, which means there will be a pluralism (different perspectives and positions will aspectualize different things, so some may value the last Northern quoll tremendously (rarity is a principle of value)…although most societies would still put the person in prison if they killed a child to save it).
Third, as I note in my latest blog, UTOK is a language system. The reason is that the Tree of Knowledge System is a new descriptive metaphysics for our scientific ontology which sets the stage for defining key terms and defining them in relation. As a function of that, it enables new ways to approach what words like culture/Culture and mind/Mind mean. This does take some getting used to.
In the blog (here), I defined psychology, behavior, mind, cognition, consciousness, self, ego/persona, person, culture and psyche. For each word, you can claim I am only using a particular referent. My reply is that UTOK is clear about the referent and asks you to be clear about your usage and that we be clear about the language and metaphysical system we are using.
Here is how UTOK/ToK defines Culture/culture:
9. Culture. In UTOK, Culture with a capital “C” refers to the fourth dimension of complexification. Consistent with Justification Systems Theory, it is constituted by the large-scale systems of justification that consist of the propositional networks that coordinate human action and legitimize what is and ought to be. It should not be confused with how many people use the term culture, which refers to traditions of learned behavioral repertoires and practices that are developed communities of individuals over time. Other animals like chimpanzees clearly have culture with a little “c”; however, only humans have Culture. On the ToK System, the fourth dimension of complexification is often called the “Person-Culture” plane of existence. As a metatheory, JUST works to frame both the structure and function regarding the social construction of reality and the ways human persons navigate those systems of justification.
Best,
Gregg
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Charles Williams
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 7:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Animal rights within UTOK via ToK
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Gregg,
I’m responding here mainly to the blog post. In Australia, if you run over a cat you don’t have to report it. If you run over a dog, you have to report it, but many people don’t and it isn’t a big deal. If you run over a child, you need to stop, report it, render first aid if trained, etc.etc. So, it’s clear that just from a perspective of reducing the hassle in your life you should run over the cat/dog/snaiI etc. rather than run over a child. So you can make a purely pragmatic choice — last time I ran over the child instead of the dog it was a major hassle — so this time I’m squishing the dog! (Of course there’s the whole issue of why we’re “needing” to run things over in the first place, but that’s another story).
Now, as self-identifying humans we shouldn’t be surprised that we put our species ahead of others. (lt is interesting to ask why this is not surprising, and there seem to be basic evolutionary pressures that can explain it). So, the bias that creates the difference in law (etc.) that I describe in the snail/cat/dog/child squishing scenario runs quite deep. If I understand what you mean by dignity, integrity and well-being — the claim that we should value a human life over an animal life is a normative claim that can form the bedrock of other decisions. The 1:1 ratio here simplifies things, if we consider other “trolley problem” type formulations it gets trickier. If by not swerving I know I will destroy the last breeding population of Northern quolls, do I kill the child or drive the quolls to extinction?
I don’t think that humans are the only animals that have culture. We may be the only ones that Justify. But for me, the mapping of the culture level exclusively onto the human seems likes an error. Or rather the error seems to be to say that Culture=Justifying. It is of course possible to strip out the meaning of Culture in a way that allows this, but that makes the argument rather circular. I would prefer to say that there are strong evolutionary reasons why members of one species preference members of the same species, and that that principle is strongly built into human culture (and justification systems). Coming back to the bedrock normative principles: Is it dignified to slaughter other animals? Is there is integrity in saying that I care for my cattle and yet send them to be slaughtered? Do I really need to have other animals killed for my well-being?
Cheers,
Tjarlz
On 4 Apr 2022, at 9:06 pm, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
This is a great question and one that I have grappled with some. Let me share my analysis. First, as you suggest and this blog elaborates, the UTOK/ToK frame does afford justification for seeing human persons as exceptional and warranting special treatment relative to animals.
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1