Hi Horse, Jonathan & LS:
> > I’m always amused by scientists who in one breath speak like Mr. Emlen
> > and then in the next breath claim that the universe shows no evidence of
> > purpose.
> And this is where the Subject/Object split causes problems in the use of
> language, as pointed out by Jonathan in his post on "SO-cleavage of word
> meanings".
Jonathan's examples all referred to inanimate, inorganic examples to
illustrate common split meanings of such words as cause, motive, drive,
determined and principle. He used references to orbits, ozone, gas
expansion and mass. As soon as you hit the bio level the meanings of
cause, motive and the like become focused on and acknowledge the
forces of will and desire, or, as Pirsig put it, "The migration of static
patterns towards Dynamic Quality."
> I would think that a number of the researchers involved in this area
> would point out that 'objectively' there is no evidence of purpose in the universe
> (without the tacit acceptance that some creator has created this purpose in some
> way), but 'subjectively' there is a purpose but that it is relative to some desired or
> desirable function.
> Purpose in this sense is when a preformulated function is performed, but that type
> of purpose presupposes that function is fulfilled for the benefit of a subject. This is
> instrumental purpose (or value) and is generally acceptable in the SOM sense
> because it can be ascribed by a subject to an object. It is one of the basic
> proposals within Value theory.
Yes, typical scientific double-speak :) Many scientists (and other types of
intellectuals) have such paranoia about religion and God (not without
cause) that they will split hairs and "spin" experience any way they can to
avoid admitting into their world the least whiff of teleology. Heaven forbid
that they suggest, however obliquely, that the universe might have a
purpose. Richard Dawkins is a leading spokesman of a purposeless
existence and the meaninglessness of life. That he writes books filled with
purpose and meaning is an irony that apparently escapes him, and many
others
> Where value theorists have great trouble is
> providing 'empirical' evidence for the existence of Intrinsic Value...
>by definition inherent, essential or belonging naturally (Concise Oxford English Dictionary).
For "empirical" evidence of Intrinsic Value one need only look at one's
own high quality desire to live and keep on living.
> On a more serious note though, I think we should be careful of proclaiming that
> because society requires something of biology then it is society that is
> necessarily right. If two societies declare war on each other and as a
> consequence succeed in the mutual annihilation of their respective biological
> base is this still right? I think this is a far too simplistic form of moral judgement.
Pirsig makes it clear that it is immoral for a higher level to destroy a lower
level because the higher level depends on the lower for continued
existence. So in the MOQ it wouldn't be right for societies to mutually
annihilate their biological bases. Morally speaking, I think Pirsig has your
scenario pretty well covered.
Don't you think, Horse and Jonathan (and anyone), that sooner or later
we must admit that the MOQ espouses a teleocosmos exhibiting goal-
directed movement, and that in so doing we erect a wall between the
MOQ and much of the scientific community? Have I missed something?
Platt
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST