X-Message-Number: 17394
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:10:37 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Reply to George Smith #17380

>In Message #17374 Mike Perry mentioned my quote (from #17363)
> >...
> >Some one suggests that they must have a positive value.
> >
> >But why?
>
>and then Mike Perry responded:
>
>"I find it *inspiring* to think that I *and* others have positive value, and
>I think this can also be justified, even for "bad" people or beings, who
>actually have some good in them (this thought too is inspiring!). (Note
>here: I don't say *a* positive value, just positive value, to emphasize
>that you don't need to worry, always, about the details! Warm fuzziness has
>its place!) This principle of valuing is an important source of meaning and
>comfort in my life and I find it very worthy of upholding. Need I say more?"
>
>Mike, in order to have a "positive value" it must be measured against
>something else whether that is a greater or lesser "positive" value or a
>negative value.  "Value" comes from making an evaluation, a measuring, a
>judgment.

I make a simple judgment that sentient beings have positive value, relative 
to an insentient object, and in particular, relative to what would be 
present if they were dead. I could go into details as to why I think that 
can be justified, but time is short and I must move on.

>There is no need to judge yourself as having any value at all, positive or
>negative.

But it can be fun.

>  To do so assumes that you must first HAVE a value and then on top
>of that you can go ahead an evaluate what you DO.  I have consistently found
>that skipping the superstition of "self evaluation" makes it far easier to
>perform the critically important task of evaluating what one DOES in the
>context of what one finds desirable or not.

All I do is just keep in the back of my mind a simple thought that sentient 
beings have value and, yes, I too am a sentient being. All of your 
complicated consequences need not follow.

>I have tried to explain in detail in previous postings why placing a value
>on one's own self is (1) not possible in the first place and (2) always
>detrimental (as it immediately introduces existential anxiety over the issue
>of the possibility of not being certain you will always measure up and
>because of the unnecessary human pain which inevitably results given enough
>time).

I don't think these conclusions necessarily follow. It doesn't feel that 
way to me.

>  As I have attempted to explain earlier, the entire Deathist
>(anti-cryonics) perspective comes, I believe, from the culturally popular
>error and delusion of self evaluation.  ("Do I DESERVE to live forever?")

I think you have a point here, but deathism does not *necessarily* follow 
from all attempts to assign positive value to sentient beings!

>I have also tried to explain that for those who will attempt to break free
>of self judgement in any area of their life, they quickly discover how it
>improves the quality of living, their effectiveness in operating in the
>world and even their potential capacity for survival.

I think you are assuming too much that "must be" implied by any form of 
value assignment whatever.

>Now the flip side of this issue is to NOT automatically grant its opposite.
>To assume a prior positive value for people in general may give you a warm
>fuzzy but it comes at the expense of clouding your perception of their
>actions and the evaluation of those actions in any particular context.

It need not do so. I can look objectively at what people are doing while 
still respecting them on another level.

>  This
>can then produce a lifetime of cold pricklies.

*Can*, perhaps, but not necessarily.


>A NEUTRAL stance toward judging other people fits a universe in which your
>judgement of any value is imposed by your judgement.  "Do unto others as
>they do unto you" is a better way of summing this up insofar as JUDGING
>their value in your life is concerned.

Sentient life forms, in general, compared to insentient objects, seem 
remarkable and wonderful in their own right. What's wrong with that?

>I can't remember all the times I have had a patient describe a family member
>who is fundamentally sociopathic in their behavior toward the patient but
>the patient's "problem" is "I feel guilty when I am angry at my
>father/mother/spouse for killing my dog, burning my car and beating me with
>a crowbar because, after all, he/she IS my father/mother/spouse and I am
>SUPPOSED to love/respect them.  I would be a BAD person if I don't
>love/respect them."

As I see it, you can actually love and respect someone on one level, yet 
judge them impartially, and possibly very critically, on another. The two 
are not mutually inconsistent, and indeed, you can rationalize the second 
on grounds that you are favoring the individual's *enlightened* self-interest.

>...
>If we ascribe a prior positive value to people just because they EXIST then
>we inhibit our own ability to then make further judgements about them based
>upon their subsequent actions.

Not if you handle it carefully. But I'll grant that many people for many 
reasons may not be ready to do this.

>  ...When we presume that all living human beings already have a positive 
> value
>(for whatever reason given) we are then starting from a premise which is
>already out of alignment with reality.

"Just your opinion" as you say, and I find myself in disagreement.

>   We feel a need to "prove" this
>assumption and, due to our psychological makeup, we distort our perceptions
>before they even become conscious.

If a person has negative value, then presumably the world would be better 
off without them, and presumably you'd favor euthanizing them, wouldn't you?

>  ...It is so much easier and helpful to simply assume nothing about the 
> value of
>anyone or anything until there is something to base that upon. ("Sometimes a
>cigar is just a cigar," - Sigmund Freud).

Well, I have some idea of what sentient life forms are and do, so I'm not 
operating in total ignorance.

>  Taking a neutral, no value, viewpoint may deny one the pleasant feelings
>that "all of humanity is basically good" but it will never leave you
>standing in line at Auschwitz through your own error either.

But the bad conclusion of Auschwitz and all does not necessarily follow if 
you *don't* follow the advice you give.

>It is also important to recognize that all of these judgements are YOURS and
>not some universal external standard to which all others must agree.

I realize that others may need considerable persuading, but it's a long 
future and I'm optimistic that good will prevail.

>Further, YOU are judging only SOME actions of others, as it is quite
>impossible to judge them ALL.

Over enough future time I see this problem not being formidable.

>  Errors will happen.  And finally, human
>redemption in YOUR eyes is potentially possible depending upon both what
>changes in behavior the "condemned" make and whether or not YOU feel these
>are sufficient to deserve a re evaluation.

To me, that a person would be in principle redeemable, would contribute to 
a positive assessment of them *right now* because of their potential good. 
But this need not overlook any present faults either.


>Additionally, I personally feel that assigning a positive evaluation to
>those people who demonstrate they deserve your praise and assigning a
>negative evaluation to those who demonstrate they deserve your condemnation
>INTENSIFIES the degree of these emotional experiences.

You can do this sort of thing while *still* in the background maintaining, 
on a certain, enlightened level, an overall positive valuation. Thus you 
might feel they are terrible now, and need much correcting, but still you 
would not permanently rub them out or condemn them to eternal torture.

>   "Unconditional love"
>has always been an oxymoron in my opinion.  To move in that direction
>weakens the intensity of both love and fear.

To me unconditional love, appropriately expressed, is an inspiration, and 
perhaps it does weaken fear.


>To take a neutral stance toward people (and all experiences) in general is
>not to see that as either good or bad but just simply un valued.  Then the
>probability that your judgements about specific actions by specific people
>will be accurate and therefore useful will increase.

Well, I would have to ask, useful for what? An immortal future? And one 
could go into a long discussion here, but time again is short.


>Dr. Nathaniel Brandon, a California psychologist and early proponent of the
>teachings of Ayn Rand, once made a lecture entitled "The Benevolent
>Universe".  I consider Brandon wrong.  The universe is neither benevolent
>nor malevolent.  It is neutral.  It is beyond good and evil.

Mainly because it is insentient, unlike sentient beings.


>We ASSIGN meaning and value to our experiences.

Yes. But I don't want to have all "bad" memories excised either. The may be 
bad, but I can see some positive value in retaining them too, so I have to 
admit they too, in a sense, have positive value.

>  ... Just drop assigning a value to
>yourself in any chosen context, substitute evaluating your experiences (YOUR
>actions, thoughts, feeling, OTHER people and the rest of reality) and see
>what happens.

Normally, I just automatically evaluate my experiences without thinking in 
terms of evaluating myself too. The two processes are pretty much 
independent and don't interfere with one another.

>   What I have found happens is (1) release from existential
>anxiety (due to dropping a delusion), (2) more happiness and (3) less pain.


When I think about the possibility of not assigning positive value to some 
sentient being, it diminishes my sense that life as a whole has meaning and 
value. So I don't get the impression of "more happiness, less pain," but 
rather the reverse.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17394