From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
Date: Mon Jan 11 1999 - 14:41:49 MST
I wrote:
>Are you saying that your life is not your property?
Samael responds:
>I don't think of my life as an object. It's a feature of mine a
'property'
>in the same way as 'dark hair' is. It's just a feature I've grown very
fond
>of.
OK, let's not quibble over intangibles; how about your body then? Would you
at least agree that your body is your property? If so, then doesn't your
property right in your body entail a right to keep that body alive (using
your own resources)?
I wrote:
>Since property includes life itself, there can be no higher good than
>protection of property.
Samael rejoins:
>Since carbon compunds include life itself, there van be no higher good
than
>the protection of carbon compunds.
Huh? In what possible sense do carbon compounds "include" life? Certain
types of compounds make life as we know it possible, but saying they
*include* life is as sensible as saying that the electromagnetic spectrum
"includes" _Deep Space Nine_. Can't you think of a real analogy?
Dick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:47 MST