LS Re: Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died (or "I need a genetic fix!")


Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:57:05 +0100


Hi Steve, and TLS,

steveho wrote:
>
> The soul is not dead. It just smell[s] funny.
>
> New technology -- brain technology or neuroscience, to be exact --
> especially PET (position-emission tomography) scan and fMRI
> (functional
> magnetic resonance imaging) allows scientists to see genes in motion.
> (They actually light up on a monitor screen!)
>
> Studies using these scientific methods (Edward O. Wilson, for example)
> have come up with an underlying premise: Every human brain is born not
> as a blank tablet waiting to be filled in by experience but as an
> exposed negative waiting to be dipped into developer fluid. You can
> develop it well or poorly, but either way, you are going to get
> precious
> little that is already imprinted on the film.
>
> This "genetic history" determines your moral choices -- not to mention
> your role preferences, emotional responses, etc. If this is true, then
> we have no free will (The Moral Sense, by James Q. Wilson -- no
> relation
> to Ed. O.)
>
> Are we hardwired? If so, how do we handle genetic mediocrity? Does the
> "self " exist? If so, where is it? PET and FMRI scanners can't find
> it.
> Is God dead? (I apologize for all these questions. But don't blame me.
> I'm wired wrong!)
>
> More later....
>
Steve,

I offer my rendition of answers to your questions. You are new to TLS,
so I offer each answer IMhO, and with admission that Homo sapiens
possess, inherently, finite intellect. Thus my finite intellect
constrains my capability to answer.

> Are we hardwired?
Steve,

IMhO, yes and no. Our genetic code is cast at conception. The two
haploids unite, the chromosomal material crosses over, and a new Homo
sapiens begins the quantum journey.

At that moment the code is set. However, from that point forward it is
subject to the forces of mutation (DQ): environment, protein
production, telomere shortening, senescence, etc.

That's the quasi-hardwired part. IMhO!

We also possess the capability from that point forward to accumulate our
own pattern repertoire. Each new pattern is an archetype. Each
recognized pattern is a stereotype. Archetypes make us aware of DQ and
that DQ is not definable. Stereotypes show us that we can own SPoVs.
We can manipulate them, define them, use them in discussions with other
sentients.

That's the quasi-softwired part. IMhO!

Doug Renselle.
> If so, how do we handle genetic mediocrity?
Steve,

The variability of the reproduction process allows a vast distribution
of combinations. Allow me to go through a brief rendition of this so
you can see the awesomeness of this. One Homo sapiens has approximately
100 thousand proteins. In the DNA, there is one gene per protein.
93.3% of the 100k genes are homozygous. The other 6.7% are
heterozygous. The 6.7% are the alleles which select variable features
in Homo sapiens. We know that 6.7% of 100k is 6700. Thus each of us is
one (unique) instance of 2^6700 possibilities. That is a huge number!
In base 10 it is 10^2011! (See John Gribbin's "In Search of the Double
Helix.")

If you show the distribution of those possibilities, you get everything
from useless to awesome in all feature mixes. Recognize that 'useless'
and 'awesome' are adjectives I am using just for sake of discussion.
Fortunately most of the features select something useful, but you can
see how we get a spectrum of genetic results this way.

We are stuck with feature combinations which produce what we perceive as
mediocrity (remember, now, that our culture defines the term
'mediocrity' locally, and what we call mediocre here might be
superlative elsewhere), but we are also stuck with feature combinations
like Newton, Einstein, Diana, Platt, and Bo. :-)

Doug Renselle.
> Does the "self " exist? If so, where is it? PET and FMRI scanners can't find it.
Steve,

IMhO, yes, the 'self' exists! Today's medical and scientific folk live
in SOMland. They use PET and MRI as tools to 'observe' us as Objects.
They live in the fallacious belief that life forms may be isolated
objectively. They believe that Objects have properties, that Value is
in the Objects they observe.

So, they are finding what they 'expect' to find: no 'self' in the
objects!

Doug Renselle.
> Is God dead?
> (I apologize for all these questions. But don't blame me.
> I'm wired wrong!)
Steve,

Notably, you are wired very well. Congratulations!

Which God?

The undefined Godhead, the God of all Gods is Quality. As MoQites, we
believe Quality is alive and well. We see it, experience it every day
of our lives. We thrill at it and its magnificence! We are awed and
inspired by it. It is Value! It is good! Its good inscribes truths!

OK, given that, are we Quality? Yes! Are we IN Quality? Yes! Is
Quality in us? Yes! Do we interpenetrate Quality and Quality
interpenetrates us? Yes!

Does God exist? Yes! Is God dead? No!

That's what MoQ does for me! It is potent! It is better than any other
philosophy I know. It is born of Pirsig's genius and suffering. What a
gift!

Mtty, Steve, (and, BTW, looking forward to more...)

Doug Renselle.

-- 
"The cause of our current social crises,..., is a genetic defect within
the nature of reason itself."

By Robert M. Pirsig, in 'Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' p. 102 (paperback), Bantam, 28th edition, May 1982.

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST