virus: An end in and of themselves

D.H.Rosdeitcher (
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:33:35 -0400

SGK wrote:

> If a human being is an end in and of themselves, then any biological /
>unconscious tendencies to live for the benefit of the species or subgroup
>(or die for it, as I mentioned in my last post: ref. Bloom's _Lucifer
>Principle_) are illusory. I find that this does not mesh with the data
>forming the body of sociobiology.

Doesn't acknowledging the fact that we are, in a sense, collectivist
animals, help us in terms of our own self-interest? It's like, cells
surviving by joining and teaming up with other cells.

> "ends in and of
>themselves" meme contained two other memes regarding the origin of human
>behavior, and in so doing show that these memes produce sociotypes that
>contrary to the Objectivist sociotype. To wit, nihilists and
> What is more damaging to successful memetic engineering: logical
>inconsistency or sociotypical inconsistency (memetic complexes producing
>sociotypes different from what they intend to produce)? Why?

Can you give an example of a sociotypical inconsistency without logical
--David R.

Editor, The Stygian Forge -- or

Member: Order of the Jarls of Baelder @
Contemporary renaissance futures @