From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 08:34:02 -0500

In reference to my  naturalistic theory of emotion presented 
at the URL below Jim Balter wrote:

>Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:

>>Rey and Matthews (see URL below) have argued that my 
>>theory is unnecessary on the grounds that anomalous 
>>emotional behavior (e.g. Evel Knievel) has already been 
>>"explained" by the theory of kin selection
>
>I can't find such an argument there, although there
>are quite a few of your claims as to what you think 
>their comments imply.  Can you provide a more direct 
>reference?

The subtitle of my paper is "A _Documented_ Chronologue
of a Frustrating Conversation...".  I have tried to 
support my claims and, lets face it, outright charact-
erizations (to get at the truth behind the truth) 
with documentation. For example, in my synopsis of the 
Rey review (Second Year) we have:

'Nor (by implication) does the SPP have any interest in 
a naturalistic reduction of self-endangering Greenpeacers,
the setting of land speed records and the like, since
they can already be explained by the theory of kin 
selection (#70).'

The paragraph in my Rational Negativism paper hypertexted 
immediately below the synopsis which contains Rey comment 
#70 reads as follows:

'Not only do such approaches (panadaptionist explanations 
of Evel Knievel, suicide, etc) adopt survival itself as 
an unquestioned rational objective, but they stand in 
glaring contradiction to the numerous instances in which 
individuals have met with serious physical harm or death 
(mountain climbing, setting world speed records, etc.) 
for what would certainly appear to be frivolous reasons 
from a survivalistic standpoint.'

Rey comment #70 which refers to this paragraph reads: 

'Fallacy. The presence of a trait in a _species_ may be 
explained by its survival value, even if in _particular_
_members_ it sometimes doesn't contribute to it.'

This is just the kin selection argument in language 
designed to disquise its implausibility and 
outlandishness.  Similarly, in my synopsis of Matthews 
you find him responding to a similar remark (letter 
to Matthews hypertexted below the Matthews synopsis) 
on my part and responding as follows:

'I can understand your being troubled by the 
existence of such things as nervous breakdowns, 
suicide, and the like, among humans.  Yet, like 
Georges, I see no inconsistency with evolutionary 
theory. Survival of the species does not require 
suvival of the individual, much less does it 
require the happiness of the individual.'

Again, we have the conclusion that my theory is 
unnecessary on the grounds that the theory of kin 
selection is a panacea for all that ails natural 
science, a statement sufficiently out of touch 
with the reality of the matter to either be 
that of an idiot unqualified 
to be commenting on such matters or a willful 
misrepresentation (my view of the matter) of the 
current state of affairs in the discipline. 

>>P.S.
>>The SPP's conclusion (Rey and tacitly four members 
>>of the executive committee) is that my theoretical 
>>views are so infantile that the only proper solution 
>>would be a beginner's course or two in appropriate 
>>subjects, a conclusion you apparently agree with.  
>>Any other deficiencies you can point to which 
>>might justify such an extreme conclusion would be 
>>most appreciated.
>
>I haven't read your paper; all I found at that URL 
>was an abstract.  Please provide a more specific pointer 
>to the whole paper.
>

I believe my summaries of my papers are actually 
clearer than the papers themselves. But I have 
included URL's to the complete texts on the reference 
page under Uncirculated References.

Phil Roberts, Jr.

Feelings of Worthlessness from the Perspective of So-Called 
Cognitive Science

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476