188 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
188 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
### ###
|
||
### ###
|
||
### #### ### ### ### ####
|
||
### ### ##### ### ###
|
||
### ### ### ### ###
|
||
### ### ##### ### ###
|
||
########## ### ### ##########
|
||
### ###
|
||
### ###
|
||
|
||
Underground eXperts United
|
||
|
||
Presents...
|
||
|
||
####### ## ## ####### # # ####### ####### #######
|
||
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ##
|
||
#### ## ## #### # # ####### ####### ## ##
|
||
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ## ##
|
||
## ## ####### ####### # # ####### ####### #######
|
||
|
||
[ On 'Love, Sex And Marriage' ] [ By The GNN ]
|
||
|
||
|
||
____________________________________________________________________
|
||
____________________________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
|
||
ON 'LOVE, SEX AND MARRIAGE'
|
||
by THE GNN/DualCrew-Shining/uXu
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
"Love, Sex and Marriage" by Leon Felkins, is a well-written essay about
|
||
the 'real' forces behind a familiar phenomena; namely 'love'. In short,
|
||
the conclusions drawn by Mr. Felkins claim that love is nothing more than
|
||
a result of our genes. There is nothing 'mystical' with love - everything
|
||
is reducible to genes. Love does not exist in some 'divine' way, nor is it
|
||
some metaphysical object (as we normally would like to claim) - it is just
|
||
our genes that play with our mind. We are also restricted by our 'memes.'
|
||
In social life, we stay away from immoral actions due to these memes.
|
||
However, I would like to show that this essay is not as controversial as
|
||
Mr. Felkins wants us to believe. On the contrary, this essay is very
|
||
characteristic for the period after the industrial revolution, which we
|
||
live in, when it comes to methods and conclusions.
|
||
|
||
This is the core of Mr. Felkins essay: Love and sex are nothing more than
|
||
a show written and directed by our genes and memes. Hence, we should not
|
||
accept any religious, metaphysical or equal answers concerning love. No
|
||
physician consult the holy bible to find answers, since everything is in
|
||
the atoms. Naturally, says even the physician, not 'everything' is in the
|
||
atoms. There must be other forces that we do not know about. Love, for
|
||
example, cannot be in the atoms alone. So where is it? In the genes and
|
||
memes, according to Mr. Felkins.
|
||
We have just realized that we have fallen into the pit of extreme
|
||
scientism. We live in an age where 'science' is the endless source of all
|
||
truths. After the industrial revolution, man threw away all dogmas and
|
||
understood that the old truths were worthless. Science is Science. Science
|
||
is the Right way. Mr. Felkins essay is another fine example of this
|
||
movement. Everything around us must, by necessity and 'rationality' be
|
||
reduced to empirical science (in this context, psychology is also
|
||
considered as an empirical science).
|
||
|
||
Why is that so? Because, empirical science produces results. Empirical
|
||
science means 'progress'. There is no progress in metaphysical and religious
|
||
beliefs! It is not even Science! That is why we must abandon these
|
||
worthless activities! The world is atoms. We are made of atoms. Therefor,
|
||
we are ruled by the atoms. Hey, wait a minute, some people say. Ruled by
|
||
atoms? Is not that reductio ad absurdum? Of course it is. But reducing
|
||
everything concerning the human mind, when it comes to love, to genes and
|
||
memes, is not that reductio ad absurdum too?
|
||
Perhaps not. Reducing everything to atoms is a messy business. That would
|
||
be too hard to get a grip on. Reducing it to genes, however, is much more
|
||
easier. We will find 'results', or in this case 'explanations'.
|
||
But what kind of 'explanations' do we really find? Well, in the end:
|
||
love is a results of our genes. Mr. Felkins just love to reduce everything
|
||
to our genes, this is a fact. But that is, as said, not all - there are
|
||
memes too. Genes are the hard core, they do not change as fast as memes
|
||
do. Working together, genes and memes produce what we would call 'love'.
|
||
So, is there something wrong with this reduction? Prima facie, no: The
|
||
reduction makes it very easy for us. We find easy 'explanations'.
|
||
|
||
But we said that it was a messy business to reduce everything to atoms.
|
||
But just because it is messy, it does not mean that it is wrong. But it
|
||
does not mean that it is right either. Reducing everything to genes and
|
||
memes is easy; but that does not make it true. It gives us 'explanations',
|
||
of course, but what kind of explanations?
|
||
Let me put it this way: worthless explanations. We are in dark waters
|
||
here, the human mind is a very unfamiliar place. We do not know how the
|
||
brain works at all. And how our genes really work are not so familiar
|
||
either, as Mr. Felkins wants us to believe. But he offers us easy
|
||
explanations that 'works'. Sure, they work in a sense. But just because
|
||
they work prima facie, are they true? Probably not. As I said, the human
|
||
mind and genes are not completely explored.
|
||
We do not really understand what love is. Hence, some uneducated people
|
||
suffers from a special kind of neurosis, says Mr. Felkins. Those who know
|
||
that love is just in the genes and memes, does not suffer from this because
|
||
they know what it is all about. How nice. Back in the old days, philosophers
|
||
treated their neurosis by reducing everything to four basic elements. That
|
||
explanation of the world 'worked' too!
|
||
"What does a 'stone' consist of? Well, these elements..."
|
||
"What is love? Well, these basic elements... <genes> <memes>"
|
||
|
||
The picture now ought to be clear; Just because something is easy to
|
||
explain, that explanation is not necessary true. We look at the ancient
|
||
philosophers and laugh. How could they be so childish! But when we try to
|
||
explain the unexplainable nowadays, we are dead serious. We are scientists,
|
||
hard men that knows how to separate Truth from False from Nonsense.
|
||
There is also a drawback: alienation. Science is said to give us the
|
||
truths, but the 'results' alienates us from morality and ourselves. We do
|
||
not longer believe in objective moral truths since science has told us that
|
||
morality is nothing more than memes. We are suddenly turned into
|
||
utilitarians, seeking pleasure because it feels good. We do not respect
|
||
other people, we do not 'really' love them - because we know that in the
|
||
end everything is just atoms (or 'genes', whatever).
|
||
Man could not stand the religious crap anymore and turned to the
|
||
empirical sciences for truths. This was of course a healthy thing to do.
|
||
Religion is nothing more than dogmas. But science has made us worship other
|
||
dogmas. The result of religion was oppression. The result of science is
|
||
alienation. We want to believe that we understand the background to
|
||
everything, but in the end we are just as confused as we were back in
|
||
the old days.
|
||
Mr. Felkins wants us to avoid the mine fields of myths concerning love
|
||
and sex. But he is walking on another mine field; the one that belongs to
|
||
the empirical sciences. The myth that science is everything, is nothing
|
||
more than a myth.
|
||
|
||
My critique can be easily explained by Mr. Felkins; I am just interested
|
||
in sex. And this text will give me more sex. I guess his line of argument
|
||
would be like this: 'My way of handling love is controversial. People will
|
||
not agree with me. Some people will dislike my ideas. You do not like my
|
||
way of dealing with the problem of love. And you know that some women <or
|
||
men, if I had been a woman> will fancy your way, because it appeals to
|
||
the old myths about love that people like (as love is in movies from the
|
||
50's: mystical). Hence, your text is just a result of your genes. You want
|
||
sex.'
|
||
Of course, I am not sure if Mr. Felkins would express himself like that.
|
||
But the concept is hopefully clear: Mr. Felkins wants to (as all empirical
|
||
sciences) reduce everything to some minimal object. Micro is the word of
|
||
today, macro means nothing. We believe that we are on our way to the
|
||
final truth, because we have trashed the religious crap. But we have just
|
||
changed our point of view. God is dead, long live physics. The result is
|
||
alienation from ourselves and other people. Mr. Felkins claims that
|
||
"...<memes> can be overridden by applying the rules of logic." This would
|
||
be true if the world was black and white. But the color of theory is, and
|
||
will always be, grey.
|
||
|
||
What should we do? Return to the old days? Of course not! But we should
|
||
be careful. Science works good, that is a fact. But we should not forget
|
||
to study the morality more close, and not trash it with the words
|
||
'Everything is just in the atoms or genes anyway!' because then we will
|
||
suffer from another kind of neurosis, namely alienation. And that is as
|
||
bad as being oppressed by religion.
|
||
Science is just a new religion, let us be aware of that.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
* Sources.
|
||
|
||
(There are naturally several more sources to the views expressed in this
|
||
text, and the below ones are just a few of them.)
|
||
|
||
- Peter Railton, "Alienation and the Demands of Morality", Philosophy and
|
||
Public Affairs Vol. 13, No. 2 (Spring 1984).
|
||
|
||
- R. Schacht, Alienation. Garden City, NY: Doubleday (1971).
|
||
|
||
- A series of lectures held by PhD Craig Dilworth on philosophy of
|
||
science, at the University of Uppsala, Sweden (Spring 1993).
|
||
|
||
- Rom Harr<72>, The Philosophies of Science, (second edition). Oxford: Oxford
|
||
University Press (1972)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
||
... naturally, but who is the underground master?
|
||
If we knew we would tell you. CALL THE STASH +46-13-CHECKINDEX
|
||
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
|
||
|
||
This is not Art.
|
||
|
||
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
uXu #260 Underground eXperts United 1995 uXu #260
|
||
Call LHD<48> -> +1-818-546-2332
|
||
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|