The Lucifer Principle and Objectivism (Rand).

Hello all,

I hope my english is up to your standards, if not, well, there’s not much I can do about it. I have good confidence I can get my point across.

Now I don’t know just how advanced I am in philosophy. In fact, I don’t know how to identify you how advanced someone is in philosophy. I don’t know how someone can prove that he is more advanced than someone else in philosophy, or if it has some importance for that matter.

I am the kind of person who needs a code to live by. Maybe it is to calm my anxious nature, I don’t know.

But I’ve been reading more books about psychology and philosophy (including religious texts) than I would care for. I sometimes have the impression that I will die, laying on a book with little to no conclusion of security for that reason.

Which brings me to the main point of this topic: The Lucifer principle by Howard Bloom.

Has anyone read this book?

Before I read this book, I was hooked on Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. I’ve read this book so many times and underlined so many things and understood so many ideas, I thought Rand’s way of seeing life was the best one (for me). I felt a calming sensation, peace. Now I had found a code of ethics, a way to help me make the right decision in life. But I have examined Rand’s work too much and read too many things and discovered a flaw in her logic. Anxiety rose up, I needed something else to reassure me, to convince me that not everything was incertitude and doubts.

A friend of mine told me:“You should be careful, you believe everything you read, you’d be good sect material.”

Now, I don’t agree that I believe to everything. But what I think is the result of sorting throught the beliefs of thousands of other people and assembling my own philosophy from bits and pieces of everyone.

At first, I felt like a fraud, like I could not think by myself. But how can you think by yourself. Your parents raise you according to their own beliefs. Can you truly think by yourself?

In other words, can you truly create your own originial philosophy? If so, how would that be possible?

When you come down to the very root of it, one’s own philosophy is only a repetition of previously stated thoughts and ideas. In other words, can we advance in philosophy? Wouldn’t be scary if we couldn’t? If we just came on this earth and recycled our parents and peers ideas, albeit not always concsiously?

Now, you may notice my thoughts are a bit confused, and they are. I won’t apologise, I’ve got a lot on my mind and I will be reading with intense interest every single replies, every single scrap.

The point of this thread is that I have found something that just doesn’t work in Bloom’s perception on life. He pictures humanity in a very honest and scientifical sort of way, brutally honest some would say.

When I read Bloom, I wasn’t under the impression that he believes in human virtues. He pretty much demonstrate the fallacy of justice, peace and freedom with convincing and scientifical points.

Here is the flaw to Bloom’s logic (this will only make sense to those of you who’ve read it).

If the goal of existence is the reproduction of genes, thoughts (ideas (“mèmes” in french) and social preseance, why do some humans help other humans out of compassion?

Why do some rich north americans send out money to the poor? This doesn’t help reproduce their genes, means they have less money and encourages justice. A kind of justice which would eventually lead to the diminution of his advantages to the profit of the augmentation of others.

If, like Bloom explains, there will always be an order among human beings, than why would the strong help the weak out?

Thanks for reading this. I will drink your ideas and maybe it will quench, if temporarily, my thirst for security.

Etienne

The strong help the weak in order to help themselves. I personally do not play into the idea of true altruism. I think a lot of it has to do with your belief systems, ethics, etc. Many people believe that if they give money to those less fortunate, then they will recieve it back multiplied. Others give to be recognized and praised by others. I am not sure how it relates completely to the survival of the species, but it makes one feel better about himself, and therefore creates more of a will to live. I am stretching there but you get the gist. Also, about thinking for yourself, I would say yes and no. Have you every had a lightbulb moment? “Eureka!” Sometimes we think of things with no effort and they just come about. But you are right though, because who we are is based on the thoughts of those around us. That is why I personally believe that their is no one individual. But you have to learn how to become objective in your everyday thoughts. You cant allow other ideas or concepts to intercept you unwillingfully. Accept what you wish to believe, and only that what you wish to believe from a standpoint of unbias thinking. But anyway I kind of got off track. I personally believe that all knowledge is already known, it usually comes about when people expound off of others ideas. It is kind of a connective web that enables the production of new ideas. So I understand what you are saying. This also made me think about how cultures and societies are formed and created. I mean everyone in that society basically follows each other. All societies are like this with their own variations. The United States is a rebel country, so it is okay to be an individual, but at the same time, the majority of us just follow the crowd. I think it is a part of human nature to follow and assimilate. Matter of fact I am about positive it is.

What about guilt. What if you help them out of guilt. Where would this come from? Belief system?

Yes, it does happen sometimes. Just how influenced by other ideas those flashes are is anyone’s guess however.

Isn’t an individual just the sum of an amalgam of beliefs? In this case, I do believe in individuality because I don’t think two people have the exact same way of perceiving things. In this sense, every one is unique. That’s what I think.

Etienne

Okay, like so many other, Etienne, you are missing the locus of natural selection. It isn’t the self or the person that is reproducing it is your genes. Keep in mind that all behavior (alteristic or otherwise) can be explained in terms of selfish gene interaction, after all, what else dictates behavior? Well, the other possible answer to that question is the field of memetics (which you have already touched on).

Here, I’ll refer you to two books: The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore.

I would suggest you read Dawkins first, then Blackmore as Dawkins will give you a simple intro to memetics at the end of his book.

Both of these books are simple enough to be aprehended by people with only a high school level of education in biology (I’m not entirely sure what that says about me, and why I like them so much…).

Here is a quick intro to selfish gene theory:
The replicator verses vehicle distinction is incredibly important to aprehend. A replicator is a repository of information that is preserved over time and spread over space. The body is a vehicle and is a physical medium for copying genes. What survives my demise is not my body but my genes. My genes are imortal, not my body.

So that view makes sense of things like self sacrifice etc. As long as the things you are sacrificing for share much of the same genetic code.

We act in such ways that favor the reproduction of our genes, not necessarily our bodies.

A quick intro into memetics:
Ideas and thoughts propigate through society much like genes do. They reproduce based on how acceptable they are to the person. Then they use the person to reproduce themselves to others. Meanwhile, they go through slight mutations from person to person as they are added to, taken away from, or reproduced badly.

The person that I point to when I say “I am Troy” is really a memeplex, a complex web of ideas, beliefs and thoughts. Complex associations like this are refered to as “memeplexes” in the literature, but this special association that makes up what we call our selves is refered to as the “selfplex.”

Memetic evolution goes hand in hand with genetic evolution. The acceptance of some thoughts and ideas directly affects our reproduction potential. Therefore, it is not hard to imagine that our brain evolved in such a way as to be a better host for some of these beneficial memes.

Hope that sheds some light.

Okay, what you are saying that the ultimate goal is not to reproduce the body, but rather the genes.

Thank you for your reading suggestions. I will check them out once I have assimilated Bloom’s theories.

I don’t know much about biology. In fact, the more I talk with other people about different kind of subject pretty much shames with just how little I actually know. But I will look deeper into this, when I have reached that point.

But all of your explainations are very instructive. However, I do not see how it answers my question…

If the ultimate goal of an individual is the reproduction of his genes (or the ultimate goal of his genes to reproducte itself) and of it’s memeplex, then explain to me this.

It’s a very simple example but I believe it does represent to some extent what I mean.

Example:

If I decide, tomorrow, to foster a young african. By doing so, I send him 30$ a month to provide whatever he needs, be it food or shool requirements. Why do I do such thing?

*I don’t do it to “show off” because no one would know I would be doing it.
*It doesn’t help reproduce my genes at all. It actually increases the reproduction of young african’s genes.
*It promotes education in under developped countries. In other words, it encourages the powerless to climb higher in the social hierarchy while I will remain exactly the same.

So, my point is, could there be more to motivate human beings than the Lucifer Principle, or if you rather the Superorganism, the ideas and the social hierarchy (“préséance social” in french).

Regards,

Etienne

Anything and everything and nothing can and does motivate a human being. That, I think, is obvious. That, i think, is the problem. That, I think, is the beauty.

Speaking of beauty…

Our actions are sometimes motivated by aesthetics alone. We are trained to see beauty in giving outwardly. I think it has roots in evolution and memes, and yes, there is ultimately a selfish reason for everything we do, (for sake of argument only – i don’t really believe this because I think there is a physical reason; selfishness implies free will, which I find extremely suspect) but it need not be for gene perpetuation, or for what goes around comes around. It may be only for the beauty and entertainment value, the poetry, if you will, of doing something “noble.” It can add to our self-esteem and joy. To put it simply, I do things that give me pleasure. Charity gives me pleasure in the same way sappy movies give me pleasure. The fact that we have this pleasure has ramifications in evolution, but not necessarily positive ones. Art is fickle and volatile, and once at the helm it’s anyone’s guess where humanity will go, probably in all directions, or it will obliterate itself…an act that may have no effect on the evolution of the galaxy at all.

I think Bloom and Rand are compatible. Every gene is a universe, every universe is a gene. Bloom puts things in wonderful scope. Ultimately we can choose our lens, how we see ourselves. We can be a cog in a wheel, or the wheel comprised of cogs. (Or the cog comprised of cogs, etc.) There’s no doubt that Rand would choose the lens that we are end goal, that our individual natures trump the collectives great and small. This is an AESTHETIC judgment, and one we should be in a hurry to share, once we realize it is merely an aesthetic judgment. All things are relative and absurd. We can carve out meaning and purpose in myriad ways. Bloom widens the palette, but for me, changes nothing. Rand is a pretentious annoyance who mistakes heroic epic poems and crisp odes to Reason for hard philosophy. But who can blame her.

I’ll go for #2. Think about how many genes you share with that young african… now lets think about how many genes you have in common with a bananna. Which organism are you more likely to act alteristicly towards?

Yeah, I have no idea what that means. However, one thing that I have trained myself to recognize is the following: Troy’s axium #2 about 90% of the time anyone uses the word “obvious,” “clearly” etc, they are either lying or have no idea what they are talking about.

Keep in mind that descriptions such as “art,” “nobility,” “beauty” etc are all available using memetic terms. If you hold that memetic evolution affects genetic evolution, then they can also be reduced to talk about genetics also.

Axiom: a statement universally accepted as true.

If reality is subjective, how can there be axioms? I’m just curious about this one.

Not sure If I understand what you mean by that. I’ll try to figure it out.

Yes. I see where you are going. But this isn’t how Bloom illustrates the reproduction of genes (at least, from my humble understanding).

Let’s take my example once again if you will.

The way I understand it, Bloom’s explanation of life is some kind of big tournament where everyone want to reproduce their genes (or the genes want to be reproduced).

Although the african, let’s call him Mark, do share some genes with me, from what I know of genetics, he would be but a distant cousin.

As for your question, I do have more in common, genetically, with Mark than with a banana. However, I think your comparison is faulty. I am referring to the reproduction of genes, human-wise. I don’t think a comparison with a fruit is convenient in this situation.

Sophism: a clever and plausible but fallacious argument or form of reasoning

(By the way, I hope you are not insulted by this, as it is not my intention. All of this new vocabulary is all new for me, and I am merely beginning to grasp the many concepts related to philosophy).

I really enjoy your inputs.

Gamer:

I am afraid this is not clear for me. If this statement was true, there wouldn’t be a point to pretty much anything now wouldn’t?

If you’re saying that you think that there is a selfish reason for everything we do, doesn’t that logically means that if we do something, it is to get something in return, in other words, “what goes around comes around”? Isn’t a contradiction to say, in that case, that not everything has to be motivated by genes or the “what goes around, comes around”?

Okay, so you say you do things that give you pleasure. But if you look at the root of your actions, wouldn’t you still find the same main motivations? Reproduction of the genes, social hierarchy and reproduction of memes? Altough I would honestly like to believe that there is more to life than just that, if you take every kind of action, it always seem to brew down to the same roots.

Yes,memes.

Now this is something that fascinates me. Do you really believe that we can modify the way we perceive ourselves at will?

I personally don’t. I don’t think you can modify the way you see yourself at the whim of a thought. I don’t think it’s that simple, I don’t think it’s that easy. If it was, It would solve every single case of low self esteem, depression and other mental ailments as such in seconds.

I don’t think you can suddenly decide you are someone great, or respectable or confident or good or loveable and so on. Such mental suggestions seem to hang around for very limited time, before metacognition sends you your usual thoughts to prevent the new suggestions from taking place and re-establish a feeling of comfort, which the new suggestions disturbed, even if it was for the best.

Am I wrong? Can you change the way you see yourself just by thinking about it. If so, I would’ve found the antidote to my own homebrew poison: my mind or rather, the functionning of my mind.

HOW? How do you do it? Cartesian method? Is that it? How do you carve it out? Religion? If I knew why, I would throw myself heart and soul into discovering my purpose, I honestly would. Because right now, I don’t have a definite idea and it’s driving me nuts.

Etienne

The concept here is actually pretty simple. The comunication centers of our brain evolved rather quickly allowing us to aprehend memes. If memetics had no positive influence on the way we evolved, then there wouldn’t be any advantage to communication.

Be careful here, I never claimed this. Just because we use subjective means to talk about reality doesn’t imply that we are unable to talk about reality. And anyone that argues otherwise is not familiar with what science does.

How do I know this? The key is predictability. If we couldn’t talk about reality and the way it operates, then there would be no reason that we could trust our predictions.

Be careful just throwing around that word, you can offend people like me very quickly.

Actually my analogy wasn’t faulty, I just picked an extreme case. If you could choose between helping a memeber of your family and that african boy, which would you be more inclined to do?

Even more personal now: Assume you have a son that you never knew. Also assume that both the african boy and your son need 30 dollars a month to allow them to live, who would you send money to?

Now lets get a little more abstract: You can save one african boy, or one chimpanzee… You can save a chimpanzee or a field mouse…

Your intuitions can be quite telling here.

You might argue “well, obviously I am more willing to save things like me before I would save something else but I don’t evaluate them in terms of genetic relatedness.”

My response is that as soon as you start thinking in terms of saving something because it is “like you” you are making judgements based on genetic relatedness.

The next argument that will probably be brought up is the argument from familiarity. It goes like this “granted I would save my son over Mark, but I would also save my friend Bob over Mark too… and I don’t have the same kind of guarantee that Bob is genetically like me that my son does, so familiarity with people must play a big part.”

I, personally, think this is the stongest argument against kin selection theory. But there are two responses. 1) As you gain familiarity with Bob you are able to make better judgements about Bob’s genetic relatedness to you then Mark’s. While you have no idea if Mark is a deranged psychopath (and therefore, not like you) you do know that you share many common charactoristics with Bob, despite his faults. 2) Obviously, (note that I am lying to you, there is no real proof of this… despite the fact it makes sense) the psychological impact of loosing someone near to you is worse then loosing someone farther away from you. This would directly affect the way tribal units would interact. If my tribal unit valued me over someone from another unit, then that would make us fight as a community which has definite benifits over fighting on an individual basis. So it makes sense why such a value of familiarity evolved.

Granted that Mark and you are distant cousins, you will still save him over the banana because he is significantly more like you then that banana is.

Etienne wrote:

I think you are right. But, when I say that there is no individual, I mean that there is no true individual. I believe that being a true individual would mean that you think only for yourself, act only for yourself, etc. Sure we think and act for ourselves often. But since who we are is based on those around us, the reason why we think and act a certain way, is not a result of our own thinking. So we can never truly be an individual by my definition. I look at it in levels. On one level, the level you have described, we can be individuals. But on a deeper level, what makes us an individual on your level, is influence from others. So at some level, our thinking is not our own. And yes helping someone out of guilt is a result of feeling bad for something you did, then you helping them to feel better, in order to gain their favor back, or just to make yourself feel better. This can stem from belief systems, which then in turn mold your ethics or morals.

My original response was a bit ambiguous. Sorry. And sorry for using that unnecessary word “obvious,” although sometimes it’s used to say “I know you know” so one doesn’t sound didactic. I felt it was clear that human behavior can be completely unpredictable and unexplainable – there’s definitely definitely definitely no logic to it, sometimes. But I admit it’s a stance that assumes free will.

here are some random thoughts…
Humans have evolved to a point where we have tremendous flexibility of volition. Unlike other creatures, we have the means and desire to generate nonsequitors, absurdity, art, defiance, via an escape-clause meme, the anti-meme meme. The anti-meme meme must have (or once have had) survival value OR it is a biproduct of some other trait that had survival value. But the end product, our behavior, this supposed “free will,” throws a curveball to the theory of evolution. Evolution will become a “choice,” more than a clockwork. We will design ourselves in the future, and like anything we design, the goals and purposes will be subjective, even random, and may ultimately have nothing to do with survival. Etienne, the lens changing issue…I’m just talking about basic existential freedom. I for one look at my life and judge it from the inside, and I’m careful not to judge from the outside, because I can’t anyway. I judge the world from the outside, and my life from the inside. Talk about ambiguous. Well, I know what I mean, Good luck.