Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Underground eXperts United File 260
### ###
### ###
### #### ### ### ### ####
### ### ##### ### ###
### ### ### ### ###
### ### ##### ### ###
########## ### ### ##########
### ###
### ###
Underground eXperts United
Presents...
####### ## ## ####### # # ####### ####### #######
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ##
#### ## ## #### # # ####### ####### ## ##
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ####### ####### # # ####### ####### #######
[ On 'Love, Sex And Marriage' ] [ By The GNN ]
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
ON 'LOVE, SEX AND MARRIAGE'
by THE GNN/DualCrew-Shining/uXu
"Love, Sex and Marriage" by Leon Felkins, is a well-written essay about
the 'real' forces behind a familiar phenomena; namely 'love'. In short,
the conclusions drawn by Mr. Felkins claim that love is nothing more than
a result of our genes. There is nothing 'mystical' with love - everything
is reducible to genes. Love does not exist in some 'divine' way, nor is it
some metaphysical object (as we normally would like to claim) - it is just
our genes that play with our mind. We are also restricted by our 'memes.'
In social life, we stay away from immoral actions due to these memes.
However, I would like to show that this essay is not as controversial as
Mr. Felkins wants us to believe. On the contrary, this essay is very
characteristic for the period after the industrial revolution, which we
live in, when it comes to methods and conclusions.
This is the core of Mr. Felkins essay: Love and sex are nothing more than
a show written and directed by our genes and memes. Hence, we should not
accept any religious, metaphysical or equal answers concerning love. No
physician consult the holy bible to find answers, since everything is in
the atoms. Naturally, says even the physician, not 'everything' is in the
atoms. There must be other forces that we do not know about. Love, for
example, cannot be in the atoms alone. So where is it? In the genes and
memes, according to Mr. Felkins.
We have just realized that we have fallen into the pit of extreme
scientism. We live in an age where 'science' is the endless source of all
truths. After the industrial revolution, man threw away all dogmas and
understood that the old truths were worthless. Science is Science. Science
is the Right way. Mr. Felkins essay is another fine example of this
movement. Everything around us must, by necessity and 'rationality' be
reduced to empirical science (in this context, psychology is also
considered as an empirical science).
Why is that so? Because, empirical science produces results. Empirical
science means 'progress'. There is no progress in metaphysical and religious
beliefs! It is not even Science! That is why we must abandon these
worthless activities! The world is atoms. We are made of atoms. Therefor,
we are ruled by the atoms. Hey, wait a minute, some people say. Ruled by
atoms? Is not that reductio ad absurdum? Of course it is. But reducing
everything concerning the human mind, when it comes to love, to genes and
memes, is not that reductio ad absurdum too?
Perhaps not. Reducing everything to atoms is a messy business. That would
be too hard to get a grip on. Reducing it to genes, however, is much more
easier. We will find 'results', or in this case 'explanations'.
But what kind of 'explanations' do we really find? Well, in the end:
love is a results of our genes. Mr. Felkins just love to reduce everything
to our genes, this is a fact. But that is, as said, not all - there are
memes too. Genes are the hard core, they do not change as fast as memes
do. Working together, genes and memes produce what we would call 'love'.
So, is there something wrong with this reduction? Prima facie, no: The
reduction makes it very easy for us. We find easy 'explanations'.
But we said that it was a messy business to reduce everything to atoms.
But just because it is messy, it does not mean that it is wrong. But it
does not mean that it is right either. Reducing everything to genes and
memes is easy; but that does not make it true. It gives us 'explanations',
of course, but what kind of explanations?
Let me put it this way: worthless explanations. We are in dark waters
here, the human mind is a very unfamiliar place. We do not know how the
brain works at all. And how our genes really work are not so familiar
either, as Mr. Felkins wants us to believe. But he offers us easy
explanations that 'works'. Sure, they work in a sense. But just because
they work prima facie, are they true? Probably not. As I said, the human
mind and genes are not completely explored.
We do not really understand what love is. Hence, some uneducated people
suffers from a special kind of neurosis, says Mr. Felkins. Those who know
that love is just in the genes and memes, does not suffer from this because
they know what it is all about. How nice. Back in the old days, philosophers
treated their neurosis by reducing everything to four basic elements. That
explanation of the world 'worked' too!
"What does a 'stone' consist of? Well, these elements..."
"What is love? Well, these basic elements... <genes> <memes>"
The picture now ought to be clear; Just because something is easy to
explain, that explanation is not necessary true. We look at the ancient
philosophers and laugh. How could they be so childish! But when we try to
explain the unexplainable nowadays, we are dead serious. We are scientists,
hard men that knows how to separate Truth from False from Nonsense.
There is also a drawback: alienation. Science is said to give us the
truths, but the 'results' alienates us from morality and ourselves. We do
not longer believe in objective moral truths since science has told us that
morality is nothing more than memes. We are suddenly turned into
utilitarians, seeking pleasure because it feels good. We do not respect
other people, we do not 'really' love them - because we know that in the
end everything is just atoms (or 'genes', whatever).
Man could not stand the religious crap anymore and turned to the
empirical sciences for truths. This was of course a healthy thing to do.
Religion is nothing more than dogmas. But science has made us worship other
dogmas. The result of religion was oppression. The result of science is
alienation. We want to believe that we understand the background to
everything, but in the end we are just as confused as we were back in
the old days.
Mr. Felkins wants us to avoid the mine fields of myths concerning love
and sex. But he is walking on another mine field; the one that belongs to
the empirical sciences. The myth that science is everything, is nothing
more than a myth.
My critique can be easily explained by Mr. Felkins; I am just interested
in sex. And this text will give me more sex. I guess his line of argument
would be like this: 'My way of handling love is controversial. People will
not agree with me. Some people will dislike my ideas. You do not like my
way of dealing with the problem of love. And you know that some women <or
men, if I had been a woman> will fancy your way, because it appeals to
the old myths about love that people like (as love is in movies from the
50's: mystical). Hence, your text is just a result of your genes. You want
sex.'
Of course, I am not sure if Mr. Felkins would express himself like that.
But the concept is hopefully clear: Mr. Felkins wants to (as all empirical
sciences) reduce everything to some minimal object. Micro is the word of
today, macro means nothing. We believe that we are on our way to the
final truth, because we have trashed the religious crap. But we have just
changed our point of view. God is dead, long live physics. The result is
alienation from ourselves and other people. Mr. Felkins claims that
"...<memes> can be overridden by applying the rules of logic." This would
be true if the world was black and white. But the color of theory is, and
will always be, grey.
What should we do? Return to the old days? Of course not! But we should
be careful. Science works good, that is a fact. But we should not forget
to study the morality more close, and not trash it with the words
'Everything is just in the atoms or genes anyway!' because then we will
suffer from another kind of neurosis, namely alienation. And that is as
bad as being oppressed by religion.
Science is just a new religion, let us be aware of that.
* Sources.
(There are naturally several more sources to the views expressed in this
text, and the below ones are just a few of them.)
- Peter Railton, "Alienation and the Demands of Morality", Philosophy and
Public Affairs Vol. 13, No. 2 (Spring 1984).
- R. Schacht, Alienation. Garden City, NY: Doubleday (1971).
- A series of lectures held by PhD Craig Dilworth on philosophy of
science, at the University of Uppsala, Sweden (Spring 1993).
- Rom Harr, The Philosophies of Science, (second edition). Oxford: Oxford
University Press (1972)
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
... naturally, but who is the underground master?
If we knew we would tell you. CALL THE STASH +46-13-CHECKINDEX
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
This is not Art.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
uXu #260 Underground eXperts United 1995 uXu #260
Call LHDý -> +1-818-546-2332
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
