An ethical stance for dicking around? Well, I was not convinced that getting a license for it was necessary, but because my husband's children were still in the teenage years, could see that morality of it from that viewpoint. Still, I do believe there is much more to it than the functionality of reproduction, and was glad to find the tantric material to validate that it can bring contentment and well being for reasons other than reproduction. My vote is YES! But I will also say that for me, life would be too complicated without a monogamous approach. I've enjoyed the autobiographies of Georgia O'Keefe and Simone deBeauvior but understood the pitfalls of multiple partners without having to read the stories.
On Sep 4, 10:51 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > LOL Moll we might say. I think we have got as far as producing a > cell. I guess once one divides it is alive. The question is probably > whether 'life' is emergent in such structuring or 'waiting around > outside' to 'invade' - whether we can redefine life other than through > the standard school definition perhaps in identifying it in a world of > information. Most of us 'enjoy' non-reproductive sex from time to > time and we might well continue to do so even when we have the ability > to produce life through the New Lego. Given we have lived through > times in which sex was only supposed to be reproductive (rules set by > men allegedly not having sex), one wonders what the ethical stance > would be once we don't need it for such. > > On 3 Sep, 15:23, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Those involved in trying to create synthetic life from scratch have > > said that to be called 'alive' a thing must have certian properties, > > these are: > > > The ability to metabolise, the ability to reproduce, and an external > > covering for protection. > > > So we can see that using this definition a rock is not alive whilst a > > plant is. > > > On 3 Sep, 05:45, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > An interesting comment BJ. My guess is we try to understand through > > > metaphor. My partner clearly went through hell in chemo-therapy and I > > > could equate this in some part through my own previous experience > > > recovering from being shot (years ago). My best mate is blind and I > > > did once make a pathetic attempt to understand by trying to get to > > > work blindfold - I was nearly in panic at my front gate and couldn't > > > make it on the train even with assistance. I knew I'd fail - I just > > > wanted some clue about how damned hard it would be. I only lasted an > > > hour - quickly realising I'd never know the real experience because I > > > could take the blindfold off. There is something we can empathise, > > > but not the chronic nature of conditions. We don't know where the > > > individual starts and society ends - however we want to put this. > > > Science probably has it that we were all 'one cell' once - even this > > > is not the start. Fatty acids, which are not alive, tend to form > > > proto-cells - this stuff exists in comets and is probably older than > > > the Earth. Something pre-life seems 'designed' to form it. I would > > > guess by now they have made life from chemicals (Harvard) - we can > > > build a cell and computer-designed DNA from chemicals - suggesting at > > > least we can design new creatures from 'chemical scratch'. I'm not > > > sure yet in my pondering whether this is much more than making custard > > > without custard powder 'from scratch' - but suspect it is. If this > > > stuff (not the custard) has 'life' then what is 'life' - is it lurking > > > about waiting to inhabit what we think of as physical? Could our life > > > flit into it? There might be no need to dick around anymore Chris! > > > > On 3 Sep, 04:07, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Atheist Crazy? Reductionist Science? Sorry, Alan. What you are talking > > > > about > > > > is what is known as Science, period. You may have decided for yourself > > > > from > > > > your "Factor X" perspective that "soul" doesn't mean what I think it > > > > does, > > > > but what you are decrying is science, and to rebut my judgement of your > > > > position as non-scientific by attacking science, while pretending you > > > > are > > > > still operating within its confines, strikes me as the sort of > > > > disingenuous > > > > line of circular reasoning presented so readily by Intelligent Design > > > > folks...no, of course they don't mean Creation, by God...just something > > > > that > > > > looks, sounds, and smells just like it. > > > > The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That's the only real > > > > rebuttal that I got from your position. That's a philosophical > > > > statement, > > > > not a scientific one. You ignored my observation that you were throwing > > > > out > > > > established science by saying that you start in observation. Yes, so did > > > > cavemen, and it took 6000 years to go from "God make the clouds go > > > > boom" to > > > > modern science. Guess how? By figuring out the parts, and the > > > > organization > > > > of those parts. > > > > > You're welcome to take an unscientific view, just be honest about it. > > > > Don't > > > > dick around and try to act like its something other than what it is. > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 23, 9:33 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > A. There has never, ever, in the history of science, been such a > > > > > thing > > > > > > > > proven as a spirit or soul. Feel free to believe in them if you > > > > > > > > like, > > > > > but > > > > > > > > it's not something any legitimate biologist would say. > > > > > > > > We look around and notice there are living and nonliving things. > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > is the cause of this observed difference? Let us call it 'soul'. > > > > > > > If at > > > > > > > that point our 'legitimate biologist' want to ignore the formal > > > > > > > cause > > > > > > > of the observed difference, and study the parts of the organism in > > > > > > > isolation, he is welcome to it. But unscientific? Why would you > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > First, why would we call the difference between life and non-life > > > > > > soul, > > > > > when > > > > > > there is an established scientific principle that life rises from > > > > > > organization? > > > > > > Established established principle that life arises from organization? > > > > > No, that is the stipulation of reductionism. > > > > > > > You completely throw out all of science to make that leap to > > > > > > begin with. > > > > > > I begin in observation. I look around, I notice there are living and > > > > > nonliving things. What is the cause of this observed difference? > > > > > let us call it the X factor. Don't go all atheist crazy over this term > > > > > soul; it is not what you think it is. > > > > > > >Then you make an error in scientific thought to state that this > > > > > > is ignoring a "formal cause of the observed difference"...not at > > > > > > all! The > > > > > > entire discipline of origins science is based on that observed > > > > > difference, > > > > > > and never once has a "soul" been offered in origins science as an > > > > > > explanation. > > > > > > Reductionist science is based on a certain way of studying this > > > > > difference -- of breaking the whole into parts, studying the parts, > > > > > ignoring the whole. They are welcome to that line of inquiry. It will > > > > > of course miss any effects of the X factor, defined to be the cause of > > > > > the observed difference between living and nonliving things.- Hide > > > > > quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
