TBOTSS and colonialism

Michael Straight · 28 May 2002, 19:38 · from urth-v0205.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:38:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <urth-v0205-1108 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0205/1108.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 28 May 2002, Andy Robertson wrote:

> Our own minds *right down to our deepest souls* are no more than a genetic
> ghost conjured up by our bodies, to serve evolutionary drives.

OK.  I thought you were saying that inhumi souls were fake and human souls
were real.

> The chameleon/parasite aspect extends even to the nature of their *minds*=
 -
> which faithfully hold to the MetaLie, the belief that they are human,   e=
ven
> while serving the cruel behest of evolution and nothing else.

OK, I agree that they want to be human and never can be.  But I think in
the course of trying to be human, they become *persons*.  I think that is
the key distinction.

Only humans are human, but chems, inhumi, digitized gods, Babbie are all
people.  I can't exhaustively define personhood, but I think it includes
moral action, the ability to love and be loved, and, for Wolfe, the
possibility of surviving death.

Inhumi personhood is derived from human beings (as are all the other
examples above), and they can never be human, but I think they can be
persons, capable of and accountable for moral actions.

> The initial point of this thread was that some of us deny the concept of =
an
> "inbuilt nature" in intelligent species.

Yes, but I'm not sure the inhumi nature is necessarily more of an obstacle
to becoming virtuous persons than human nature.  Neither group comes off
very well in the SS books.

-Rostrum

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net