Understood, regarding your reference to morality. My rejoinder, in turn, alluded to the nature of morality as an inconsequential fig leaf. Morality exists simply to justify behavior that other forms of life perform instinctively. Again, morality may or may not be a marker for distinguishing humans from other forms of life, but it is certainly not a basis for arguing that what we call humans are a unitary species.

As for genocide, that was the farthest thing from my mind. One of the charming aspects of morality, however, is that one can use it to justify almost anything, from one perspective or another. As Nietzsche counsels, whenever anyone invokes morality, we should always ask, whose morality?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28 Sep 09 | 11:38AM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Morality
> exists simply to justify behavior that other forms
> of life perform instinctively.

Well, no. Morality is a discussion we have about which rules should govern our interaction. To be able to have such a discussion is unique to our species.

Quote:

Morality is a discussion we have about which rules should govern our interaction. To be able to have such a discussion is unique to our species.

Well, no. Idealistic assertions and wishful thinking aside, morality has historically served as a set of rationalizations to provide socially acceptable reasons for why we find some behaviors proper and not others. "There is no morality, only moralities" (Nietzsche). Sometimes these rationalizations take the form of dialogue, but, as history shows, for practical purposes they more often than not take the form of a monologue.

The very fact that the morality of some peoples allows for cannibalism, whereas others' does not, seems rather more important than the fact that you can plead your case for not being eaten before a cannibal tribunal--who may in fact find your assertions incomprehensible, or, from their perspective, absurd. This fact is also more relevant to the question of whether "species" is an accurate, or even useful, unitary concept.

I call morality a fig leaf because it attempts, pitifully and inadequately, to conceal far more base and basic drives and instincts. Nietzsche has discussed the subject quite thoroughly, and I refer you to his works if you have any more questions.

In sum, to be able to have discussions about morality may be unique on this planet to what you call humans, but, again, that fact has nothing to do whatsoever with my particular point about the concept of species, and whether humans can and should be considered a unitary species.

Anyway, I've made my point, so that's all for me on this subject. Feel free to take the last word, if you like.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sometimes these
> rationalizations take the form of dialogue, but,
> as history shows, for practical purposes they more
> often than not take the form of a monologue.

Well, that is a start, at the very least! If you really believe that you may kill anyone you like, why talk about it at all? It might even alert your enemies to the threat and make them avoid you! Hence any attempt at justification already concedes the fundamental point, as it implies that you are, in effect, asking permission.

I am, in fact, familiar with Nietzsche. He is wonderful as a humorist and provocateur---I just do not think he had anything very interesting to say about the nature of morality.

Did CAS have a disdain for dogs, like Lovecraft did (who referred to dogs as peasants and cats as aristocrats)?

Lovecraft was wrong in his view on dogs as more stupid than cats. The different social behaviours of cats and dogs, and the more overtly dependent nature of dogs, and their goofyness, has no bearing on intelligence.

I love dogs, I grew up with them, and as a child they were centre of security, in a sometimes insecure environment. Dogs are not cruel, and they don't deceive you. Dogs are generous. Actually I feel more sympathy for dogs, than for humans. And I would probably be capable of bashing in the skull of anyone who is cruel to dogs (or to cats for that matter).

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I love dogs

Somehow I get the feeling you are trying to change the topic.

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Somehow I get the feeling you are trying to change
> the topic.

No, not at all. I myself can never be prevented from going off-topic and "be tied to raw new thrads", so I won't stand in your way.

Dogs fit well into the species debate. Dogs and man are so much socially inter-connected, that I actually believe they are beginning to merge into one, or rather, parallell shapings sharing the same qualities, slowly, in a longer time perspective. Here are a few of my friends learning to talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lufZfbquoaQ&feature=related

And while I haven't read anything by Nietzsche, I found this TV-program about him quite sensible and convincing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pilLBcdSMI

Lovecraft's ailurophilia and his denigration of canines are ridiculous, I think, but to each his own preferences.

CAS, by contrast, like most members of the rural poor, did not have the luxury of sentimentalizing domestic animals, but he seemed fond enough of cats, in his way, provided that they could fend for themselves.

As an aside, I am a little surprised that CAS took such a zero-tolerance approach to rattlesnakes in the cabin's vicinity, as they tend to keep to themselves, and are useful to have around for rodent control. You just need to keep track of where they are!

Clark was fond of dogs, but could not afford to keep one, and dogs unfed, like people, tend to become feral.
The California Diamondback rattlesnake tends to be highly aggressive, and on the ridges where Clark lived they seek out shady places (gold mines, and well shafts) and, along with being dangerous (particularly to people with no ready access to medical care - I have his mother's home remedy book), are yummy when filet'd and either pan-fried, or wound on a forked stick and cooked over an open fire.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lovecraft's ailurophilia and his denigration of
> canines are ridiculous, I think, but to each his
> own preferences.

People who are mentally cool and anti-dependent when it comes to socializing with others, usually prefer cats. While those who are more emotional, generally like dogs better.

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clark was fond of dogs...

There is a nice photograph of a stylish Clark petting a dog in Selected Letters of CAS.

Calonlan:

Quote:

The California Diamondback rattlesnake tends to be highly aggressive

Interesting. The Florida and Arizona varieties must be less so, as I seldom had trouble with them. The only ones that make me nervous are the babies, as they cannot control the amount of venom they inject (and they are born with a full complement of it), nor, being without developed rattles, can they warn you! Scorpions were always a bigger concern to me in Arizona.

When I was a boy, I tried fried rattler once, which a camper had killed. I didn't care much for the taste, but then, I was always a bit of a finicky eater!

Knygatin:

Quote:

People who are mentally cool and anti-dependent when it comes to socializing with others, usually prefer cats.

That describes me perfectly, and yet I have always been more of a "dog person". There are always exceptions to categories, which is why I find them generally so useless, I suppose.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Sep 09 | 03:48PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
"People who are mentally cool and anti-dependent when it comes to socializing with others, usually prefer cats."

> That describes me perfectly, and yet I have always
> been more of a "dog person". There are always
> exceptions to categories, which is why I find them
> generally so useless, I suppose.


Hmm... I wonder just how well you know thyself.

Quote:

I wonder just how well you know thyself.

Quite well enough, I think. When the "minute particulars", as Blake calls them, clash with a given category or generalization, then I tend to discard the generalization.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Sep 09 | 05:14PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder just how well you know thyself.
>
> Quite well enough, I think. When the "minute
> particulars", as Blake calls them, clash with a
> given category or generalization, then I tend to
> discard the generalization.

The essential "minute particulars" might just occupy a blind spot.
My impression of you, from having read your posts for some time, is that you are essentially a dog-person rather than a cool cat-personality. With all good compliments! Restless and impatiently eager to be heard immediately... wagging energetic enthusiasm or disdain... gushing disagreements, agreements, or sardonic annihilations. Perhaps disciplined in an intellectually refined package, but in short... quite emotional.

I enjoy both cats and dogs. As was stated Dogs are not stupid. I wonder if Lovecraft developed a disdain for dogs or was it in his upbringing. Although, cats can be like dogs. I've got 2 cats, Ebenezer and Phillips. Ebenezer wines constantly, especially if left alone or when picked up. Though Phillips is a people person but a loner. And dogs are smart as people on this board have stated. My dog reacts differently to individual names and commands. He knows how to speak, rollover, and catch popcorn in his mouth.



Phillips, I believe, would be a major enjoyment for Lovecraft. He is curious and constantly playing, loving and very loyal. Plus he is patient like you wouldn't believe. In the 2 yeas I've had him hes only "meowed" 1 time. Though he can be a problem sometimes because he loves to pounce and then wrap himself around your shoulders like a shawl and lick your hair clean of dirt and oil.