Hello everyone
Walter Balestra wrote:
>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.
Glove:
I've been pondering your question here and come to the conclusion that the
ability to think in general and the ability to realize are perhaps the same
and not necessarily only a human characteristic. Perhaps this is where the
sentience problem comes into being? I am not sure if I am seeing this
properly yet or not... there's much more to ponder on this.
>
>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: If the Self is an 'unconscious reflexive mechanism' then what does
that do to sentience?
>
>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.
Glove:
Perhaps we are the most advanced only from our vantage point.
>
>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".
Glove: Yes, compassion comes automatically with the rise of the intellect.
Your email makes much sense to me Walter. And gives me much to think about.
Thank you for writing.
Best wishes
glove
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