Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4084 alt.romance:5665 soc.men:24103 soc.women:30277 soc.singles:74549
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!lll-winken!uunet!microsoft!rodvan
From: rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <59598@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 6 Dec 90 02:57:21 GMT
References: <1990Nov8.205905.1627@oracle.com> <16791@netcom.UUCP> <17570@netcom.UUCP>
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 63

In article <17570@netcom.UUCP>, barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes:
> In article <59261@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes:
> >In article <16791@netcom.UUCP>, barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes:
> >> In article <59079@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes:
> >> >we survive by virtue of our rational faculty.
> >> 
> >> 	Surely not only that? Mating is an important part of
> >> racial survival, but mating seems to have a very necessary
> >> bit of irrationality about it :-).
> >
> >Which is?
> 
> 	Love. And sex.

Both Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden present definitions of "love" which 
are based on the idea of a rational love.  Not bad definitions, as such
things go, either.  You can find these in Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED, and in
Branden's THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ROMANTIC LOVE.

Or, for a real humdinger, <-: you can wait for me to finish my book.
As far as I can tell, I've formulated the most comprehensive definition
which takes in not only rational love, but also irrational love.

As for sex, I can think of all kinds of examples of both rational and
irrational sex.  Can't you?



> 
> >And why?
> 
> 	Beats the shit out of me :-).

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.



> 
> >Just because 99% of the human population behaves like an 
> >idiot doesn't mean idiocy is either a desirable characteristic
> >or necessary to our survival.
> 
> 	There's more to life than survival. I don't think love
> would be as rewarding as it is, were it reducible to purely
> logical components. Rationality is overrated. Logic is only
> one minor function of the human brain, and in some ways a
> trivial one. We can program machines to be logical, but we
> can't (yet, at least) program them to appreciate beauty, to
> feel love, or to understand self-sacrifice.

And from the crow's nest, you illustrate that you do not understand
the difference between "rationality" and logic.  Hint: Logic is a
tool of cognition; rationality is a faculty.



> 
> -  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

OO
\/
Rod


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com