Platt, Glove, Ken and Group:
Glove wrote:
> So what is the reason for reason? Reason is a way for us to be comfortable.
> We tell ourselves that we know how the universe began... we even calculate
> to the microsecond what occurred at the beginning of the universe with our
> reasoning. Things are not quite so scary for us then perhaps?
Platt wrote
> Not only does reason make us comfortable, it's necessary for our
> survival. Unlike animals who are born with the tools needed to live, we
> humans must use our wits to outfox mother nature and her predatory
> creatures. Basic to our being here at all is the If-Then pattern of thought:
> "If we surround that wild pig with our spears, brother Sapiens, then we'll eat tonight."
Do you talk about the same "reason"? Is it
a) the ability to think in general, or
b) the (human) ability to realize that there's a world and to realize that you yourself exist.
The second seems to me the one Glove is talking about, the first seems to regard Platt's
quote. I think that Platt is right in saying that reason is necessary for survival. In fact I think it's
its primarily function. It's part of the way the human being was (is) able to stay alive in an
ever changing environment. I'm (almost) sure you agree Platt that, of course, the If-Then
pattern of thought is not limited to us humans. Your last sentence could easily apply to
a group of hyena's (without the spears that is :-)). This survival-reasoning is found in many
more animals, though on a lower cognative level and we could argue if that would still be
called 'reason' (I know Descartes surtainly wouldn't). Evolutionary, this 'Reason' (definition a)
is a continuum which took a giant step when the human brain appeared. In humans it became
Reason like in definition b.
The mystica Bernadette Roberts writes about the Self being an 'unconscious reflexive mechanism'.
She calls this mechanism "the mind bending back upon itself". It is this mechanism that makes it possible
to make oneself into an object. This is an other way of explaining definition b, with in it a path to mysticism.
Glove writes
> Reason is the capability to form conceptual agreements with other humans and elevate
> ourselves to the top of the evolutionary ladder. A grand culmination of billions and billions of
> years, resulting in us! How can we not help but swell up our chests in pride...
I fully agree with your irony about the human arrogance, Glove. Mankind is certainly not at the top
of the evolutionary ladder. But I don't think we can get around the fact that mankind (with all its flaws)
is at this moment of all species the most advanced on this evolutionary ladder, which is at the same time
also the moral ladder.
Ken writes
> I still just have a gnawing feeling that too much weight is given to the intellectual level.
> [and] The fact that sentience does cause us to base morality on the increasing levels of
> the MoQ is EXACTLY what fragments it and causes morality to be divorced from our total situation
> in the universe. It causes our concept of morality to be narrowly focused on the concerns of humanity.
In the past I argued that Pirsig levels should be seen as the big steps among other small steps in
the continuum of the 'evolution' of patterns into more complex/moral patterns. And here it is! Just like
the social level has different sublevels (like family, people, state, nation, etc.) the intellectual level also
has different sublevels. What you are doing guys, is judging the intellectual level on its least-moral sublevels
and subsequently throw it away.
The intellectual sublevels consist of steps of increase of consciousness in a human being. These steps are
also steps of increasing morality: i.e. moral stages. A child growing up to an adult, follows different
moral stages. Something like
- In the beginning unidirectionaly being only aware of the breast that feeds it
- realizing that with certain actions there are certain things to be gained (bidirectional)
- it learns that it's mother and father aren't the only persons around. It is part of a society with certain rules
- the social codes seem oppressive (puberty) and one should kick as much as posssible against rules
- the person understands the meaning of rules, feels part of society --> caring for others
I'm sorry for the bad summary. These stages can be defined much better, but I hope you get my point.
I know that psych. Colberg has done some reseach about these moral stages. It is know that a big part
of the people only pass through a few moral stages and cease development at an early point in there lifes.
(From a moral point of view we could question if we can call these people adults).
Now link the above with a quote from the Norwegian philosopher and deep-ecologist Arne Naess
in Capra's 'Web of life'!!! (sorry for the translation):
"Care comes automatic as the 'Self' broadens and deepens, so that protection of the free Nature
is felt and seen as protection of ourself ... One cares for oneself without moral pressure to do so.
Just like you don't need morality to keep on breathing ...you don't need any moral encouragement
to care for an other being, if your 'Self' encloses or comprises this other being. If reality is
like the ecological self is aware of it, our behaviour follows naturaly and in a splendid way the norms
of a strict environmental ethics".
Hope you will respond.
Walter
PS If you stayed with me down to here: thanks for your reaction Mark. Sorry that I didn't answer anymore.
The subject of the society vs. the individual (as a source of thoughts) that Struan kicked off is a thing I still
have to think about. It somehow stranded on the discussion about the source of the good (which isn't
strange I think). I feel we haven't made much progress yet.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST