Survival does not make Right

ETYMOLOGY - survive Look up survive at Dictionary.com

1473, originally in the legal (inheritance) sense, from Anglo-Fr. survivre, from O.Fr. souvivre, from L. supervivere "live beyond, live longer than," from super "over, beyond" (see super-) + vivere "to live" (see vivid). Survival is attested from 1598; phrase survival of the fittest was used by Spencer in place of Darwin's natural selection. Survivable "capable of being survived" is attested from 1961. Survivalist "one who practices outdoor survival skills" (often in anticipation of apocalypse or in fear of the government) is recorded from 1985.
transcend Look up transcend at Dictionary.comc.1340, from L. transcendere "climb over or beyond, surmount," from trans- "beyond" + scandere "to climb" (see scan (v.)). Transcendentalism first recorded 1803, in reference to the philosophy of Kant; applied 1842 to the religio-philosophical views of Emerson and similar New England thinkers. Transcendental meditation is recorded from 1966.
On:
       source: ... (CONTEXT)
Unfortunately you have strayed & started a new discussion on the usual RWG panopoly!  Let it be said that I am not crying spilt milk as I was for Jordin anyway (said above in my second comment). Somehow your RWG has got you by the nads.  Survival is NOT the ultimate test for goodness or rightness.  That is your materialistic-Darwinian bug-a-boo!  Survival itself is only in the context of a small section of time - remember the dinosaurs. & ..
"whatever survives is what is right" - Seth's comment

Tags

  1. item 7276
  2. transendance
  3. trnscend

Comments


Mark de LA says
This could also encompass the "ends justifies the means" conversation.

Seth says
I do not see survival as something that versus transcendence.  Frequently if an individual (or group of individuals) does not transcend some situation, they do not survive.  Trancending is good for surviving, it does not oppose it, it helps it.   I think you are trying to get at my belief that survival is King, but i also believe that trancendance (getting beyond some barrier) is also frequently necessary ... so it is hard for me to get from the context that started in 7276 to the concepts that are being introduced in this item.

Seth says
source: M: 2007-05-19 15:38:19
Transcendental was the first word I thought of.  I think I was thinking of the permanent verses the transcendental when I wrote that title.  IMHO, survival is of the transcendental since nothing survives forever; process or not.  Even some astrologers & cosmologists believe that the Universe will not survive either.  Putting a process context on the whole question makes it interesting but takes us out in a peculiar direction.  Even the human body survives in it's process of decay while becoming part of the earth or plants which are eaten & rejoin the biosphere.  So we could say the the human physical body survives forever, but changes form.

Perhaps you are refering to what i might call "Trancendental versus temporal" ... the trancendental having no part of permanance or continuation ... otherwise i have no idea what your first couple of sentences directly above mean. 

I don't think it helps us understand the priority of survival when judging value to extrapolate to time spans much greater than a small number of human generations.  Judgements and valuations are best made in a context with which we are intimately familure; but nobody has experiences across those very large time frames.  Keeping and studying History helps, but then too such histories are written by the survivors.   Also there are cases where continuation (survival) is not even deemed to have a positive virtue; for example ice sculptures.  This is not a subject that lends itslef to a simple rule that always aplies no matter what. 

On 7276 in response to your comment ...
In America we cherish the notion that we can vote even if the choices are somewhat limited. What else could we have as a replacement? Tests? Someone could know all the right things to say & do but not (for some reason) be able to do them or persuade others to do them. IMHO, the congruency of thoughts, feelings & the will to do them is needed. No test will work for that.
... I said: "Whatever survives is what is right ... get over it".  You seemed to be searching for some new way of choosing that did not suffer from the ills of voting.  Well in the context of a popularity contest, it is hard to think of anything better than who survives the vote.  The only process that is better perhaps is who sells the most records ... but that too is survival ... economic survival.  As you suggest one way to change that is to have experts who "for some reason know what is right" ... but then you have changed the subject away from a popularity contest.  To determine who is the most popular, you must consult the people.  

In the context of democracy the same mandate holds true ... if it is to be our government ... a government of the people ... then the people must be counsulted.  Experts who "just know" cannot help ... that is a different form of governance.  In this context, the politician who survives the vote, rules.  Certainly after the fact we can look at the mess a politician got us into ... we can judge it as bad ... we can say that we made a mistake ... we can abhor the error of our vote ... and perhaps even change our political affiliation.  In the end, over many generations, as a nation, we will survive or die according to the wisdome of such choices.  I think there is a wisdome in the stastics of a large number of independant agents acting according to what they think is in their best interest.  Or at least that is the premis of democracy.

Mark de LA says
seth 2007-05-19 13:41:22 7309
I do not see survival as something that versus transcendence.  Frequently if an individual (or group of individuals) does not transcend some situation, they do not survive.  Trancending is good for surviving, it does not oppose it, it helps it.   I think you are trying to get at my belief that survival is King, but i also believe that trancendance (getting beyond some barrier) is also frequently necessary ... so it is hard for me to get from the context that started in 7276 to the concepts that are being introduced in this item.
Transcendental was the first word I thought of.  I think I was thinking of the permanent verses the transcendental when I wrote that title.  IMHO, survival is of the transcendental since nothing survives forever; process or not.  Even some astrologers & cosmologists believe that the Universe will not survive either.  Putting a process context on the whole question makes it interesting but takes us out in a peculiar direction.  Even the human body survives in it's process of decay while becoming part of the earth or plants which are eaten & rejoin the biosphere.  So we could say the the human physical body survives forever, but changes form.


Mark de LA says
2007-05-19 14:55:01 the
source: ... (from 7276 - wrong node)
Seth: M 2007-05-19 10:55:29 7276 Unfortunately you have strayed & started a new discussion on the usual RWG panopoly!  Let it be said that I am not crying spilt milk as I was for Jordin anyway (said above in my second comment). Somehow your RWG has got you by the nads.  Survival is NOT the ultimate test for goodness or rightness.  That is your materialistic-Darwinian bug-a-boo!  Survival itself is only in the context of a small section of time - remember the dinosaurs.  Well i took your calling my logic "perverted" as an indication that more dialogue was necessary, were there ever to be a meeting of minds on this issue.  That which survives is what continues to happen.  That which dies stops happening.  Making judgements about what happened is useful so that we do not repeat errors.  Those individuals and groups who learn from their mistakes, will have a better chance of surviving ... so it is useful to make judgements (goodness, or rightness, or practicality, etc) of what happened in the past.  One of the factors in making those judgements is whether the process stoped happening or not.  The old aphorism "It was a successful operation, but the patient died" illustrates with humor the absurdity of not putting a high priority on survival into judgements of the past.  That is all just common sense and should not be contraversial.  I think you have raised the question:  Is there some ultimate test for goodness and rightness that is a higher priority than is survival in our judgements of the past?   Certainly people who are blessed with faith in scripture, or faith in is some setarian teaching, or even faith in their own innate feelings of rightness, will profess knowledge from such tests.   But must we rely on that kind of faith?  What is the best secular priority to use in our judgements?
...

Mark de LA says
source: ...
M 2007-05-19 10:55:29 7276 Survival itself is only in the context of a small section of time - remember the dinosaurs. 
Seth - Processes stop happening when they are no longer stustained by thier environment.  They die because they are not capabel of adapting to the changes around them.  In your chosen term, they became out of context ... or their context is too small ... too specific.  I think there will always be a way of translating terms like "good", and "evil" into terms of survival and still  preserve the common sense knowledge of the situation.
...(moved again) - you have one more attempt to add something to that other node & then I will delete it without moving it.


Mark de LA says
IMHO, perverted logic is anything that says that the ends justifies the means & whatever survives is right. So far nothing here or in the other item convinces me that any of the aforementioned is true.


Mark de LA says
I am an advocate of freedom; democracy within a republic - the system that the USA has. Pure democracy is not my bag. I can't see a pure democracy working in the UK or anywhere else any better than our bicameral version. I am thinking outside the box for this. So far, I see nothing enlightening on either this node or 7276 so far. BTW, everything survives until it doesn't.

Seth says
M 2007-05-19 20:51:57 7309
I am an advocate of freedom; democracy within a republic - the system that the USA has. Pure democracy is not my bag. I can't see a pure democracy working in the UK or anywhere else any better than our bicameral version. I am thinking outside the box for this. So far, I see nothing enlightening on either this node or 7276 so far. BTW, everything survives until it doesn't.
I don't see anything enlightening either ... what i have said here is just common sense.  I was just trying to get at what you though was "perverted" logic.

Mark de LA says
This is an example of a celebrity who thinks to much of himself & his opinions.
source: ... I want the public to be very scared by what they see. I want them to see a very bleak future. I want them to feel disillusioned halfway through and feel hopeless.
... Another example of the means not justifying the end! DeCaprio is now a pawn of Algore-mentalism.

see 3468

Mark de LA says
seth 2007-05-20 08:34:09 7309
M 2007-05-20 06:09:56 7309
This is an example of a celebrity who thinks to much of himself & his opinions.
source: ... I want the public to be very scared by what they see. I want them to see a very bleak future. I want them to feel disillusioned halfway through and feel hopeless.
... Another example of the means not justifying the end! DeCaprio is now a pawn of Algore-mentalism.
This comment is a great example of how you can quote someone out of context to make it look like their opinion is shit.  For the recond here is what you snipped ...
source: DiCaprio sheds light on 11th Hour
... And then when we get into the entire section in the second half when we talk about cultural transformation and a new way of looking at things and the alternatives or green technology and all these things, you realize there is great hope and there are options on the table. And hopefully the audience is moved and galvanized to do something about it. Hopefully.
But i can see how it would have been hard to make your particular point and include that.  In any case thanks, now i want to see it ... especially for the second part.
That methodology is exactly what I claim is wrong.  Carried to an extreme, using your perverted logic (previously defined) one can distort anything & then sell a solution to the distortion; indeed adverts make use of these techniques all the time.  Enjoy your brain washing - it needs it!
 I wonder what high-powered visual imagery & suggestive verbalization does to the brain in building a residual malaise, paranoia & hopelessness?  How long does the PTSD from such a thing last?  Does it hypnotize in such a way as to cause unconscious behavior & loss of personal will?

Mark de LA says
M 2007-06-13 04:27:20 7309
Just to crisp this argument up a bit, if survival is the criterion for being Right (rwg ?) then all right could be decided by wars & right would prevail through wars.

Let's kill all the bastards who don't agree with us!

Mark de LA says
seth 2010-07-03 08:43:19 7309
C 2010-07-03 07:31:06 7309
Given a large enough span of time, NOTHING survives!  - At least if we are talking of the material Universe.

Try and understand what i am going to say ... and please don't take it as just another RWG transaction.   Every so once in a while the mind will think a thought ... or make a comparison ... that, while logical and even perhaps true, ... has some emotional component which is beyond our pay grade so to speak.  Your's above is just such a case.  I don't believe the human mind has the scope and depth of knowledge and judgement to make useful comparisons on scales which are radically removed from normal experience.  What i am saying is that the judgmental, emotional and reason for action component of such thoughts should be discarded.  Go something like ... Wow! ... i just though a stupid useless thought ... you'll feel better for it.

Your stupid useless thought is equivalent to saying there is an uncontrolled gushing oil well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico which persists therefore it must be right because it is God's Will -OR- Obama & Congress are in fact persisting in bankrupting the US Economy therefore it must be right because it continues to survive.   PHOOEY!


See Also

  1. Thought Voting does not always yield the best result with 0 viewings related by tag "item 7276".