[FoRK] Lion, rationality, reason, and seriousness

Lion Kimbro <lionkimbro at gmail.com> on Wed May 9 12:31:03 PDT 2007

On 5/9/07, Albert S. <albert.scherbinsky at rogers.com> wrote:
> --- Lion Kimbro <lionkimbro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >     "Rationalize your existence!  *wpsh!* DO IT!
> Evolution!

  "Rational": Be quiet!  I order you to be quiet!
  Lion: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
  R: I am fully-informed rationality!
  L: Well, I don't see your axiomatic theory.
  R: You don't *derive* fully-informed rationality.
  L: Well, 'ow did you become rational then?
  R: The genetic code,
    [angels singing]
    evolved over hundreds of millions of years, clad in the
    purest Guanine, Adonine, Cytocine, and Thymine,
    held aloft a brain from successive developments of
    species, and educated by the greatest of psychological
    insights, signifying by fully rational reasoning, that I,
    FoRKer, was to carry the Title --
    [angels stop]
    ...that is why I am rational!
  L: Listen -- strange codes lying in primordial soups
    distributing survival instincts is no basis for a system
    of rational thought.  Supreme truths derive from
    provably logical sequiters over agreed upon axioms,
    not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!
  R: Be Quiet!
  L: I mean, if I went around saying I was arguably rational
    because I was raping women and murdering men,
    because my chromosomes demanded it, they'd put me
  R: Shut up!  Will you shut up!
  L:  Ah, now we see the inability to respond to rational
    arguments, inherent in the system!
  R:  Shut up!
  L:  Oh!  Come see the lack of axioms!
  R:  Bloody peasant.
  L:  Oh, what a give away. Did you hear that, did you
    hear that, eh?  That's what I'm on about -- did you see
    his lack of axioms and sequiters, you saw it, didn't you?

  My point is, "Evolution" is not a reason to live, rather than
  not to live, unless we imagine "Evolution" in a sort of
  anthropomorphized, willful sense.  And if Evolution is willful,
  Evolution is a son of Passion.

  Evolution, not-anthro'ed, is a mathematical phenomenon,
  and not a rational element for deciding whether life is worth
  living, or otherwise.

  > By this,
  > one could argue that those who raise reason above
  > passion are more human.

  If a guys passionate about knowledge, and learning, and in
  love with learning about the world, and perhaps justifies it as
  part of the effort to save life on Earth, or ensuring *some* sort
  of future for life (in whatever form) in our solar system, I can
  understand that as human.

  But if it's just a person striving to be Spock out of
  some mad (and I'm arguing that it *is* mad,) obsession with
  incarnating his anthropomorphized vision of "Rational," I have
  a harder time calling that "human."  It's clear that people falling
  into human foibles are human as well, but I don't have to like it..!

  Thank you,

More information about the FoRK mailing list