Re: MD A bit of reasoning

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 11 2004 - 10:12:32 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD A bit of reasoning"

    Materialism is SO dualism with the subject gone missing
    how else does it define matter, materialism is anthropocentric projection.

    DM
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 8:15 PM
    Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning

    > Ham,
    >
    > > Scott replied [to Platt]:
    > > > I am disagreeing with the notion that intellect only happens in
    people,
    > so
    > > > I am declining your suggestions :-). Plants can't read Lila, but they
    > can
    > > > -- or their species can -- read the soil they are in, match bits of it
    > > with
    > > > the pattern of "nutrition" and so take it in and grow. Also, DQ can't
    > > > change a lizard into a bird, but it can take the idea of a lizard and
    > use
    > > > it to build the idea of a bird (with, no doubt, a lot of trial and
    > error,
    > > > for which particulars provide feedback, and maybe not even knowing
    what
    > it
    > > > is building until it gets built -- I'm not trying to support the usual
    > > > Intelligent Design argument here).
    > >
    > [Ham said:]> What is wrong with supporting "Intelligent Design"? It
    > certainly makes
    > > more sense than attributing Intellect to the amoeba or plant. This
    thread
    > > is titled "A bit of reasoning". At the risk of offending those of you
    who
    > > abhor the word Teleology and yet seem determined to prove that purpose
    is
    > > implicit in Quality, let me try to inject some reason into this
    discussion
    > > with the help of a biologist.
    >
    > Note that I said "the *usual* Intelligent Design argument". I am not
    > anti-teleological, nor is Pirsig. Although I differ in many ways from
    > Pirsig, we are both monists, and it is the dualism of the usual
    Intelligent
    > Design argument that I reject -- see below. In my view, an amoeba is not
    > intelligent, but the amoeba species is. A human being differs from
    > non-human animals in that the non-human animal gets its purpose from
    > instinct -- its species' intelligence -- while the human gets some of it
    > from itself. We can make our own goals, and can question and resist the
    > biological ones.
    >
    > The usual Intelligent Design argument comes in the form of God as Designer
    > and world as Designed, or dualism, and that is what I am trying to avoid.
    > This is not to say that I am espousing pantheism, but that I am leery of
    > theism.
    >
    > > Here are some pertinent quotes from the Sinnott book:
    > >
    > > "Dualism is especially unpopular as a philosophy for science since it
    > seems
    > > to imply mysticism, the supernatural, and the existence of disembodied
    > > spirits, with none of which science is prepared to deal. The alternative
    > > monistic philosophy, however, in its commonest form sees the universe as
    > > indeed a unity but a unity based only on matter, the final reality. It
    > looks
    > > on mind as a by-product with no real existence of its own, something
    that
    > is
    > > tied inexorably to physical processes and produced by them much as music
    > is
    > > produced by a phonograph. The material part of man appears to permanent
    > and
    > > stable that it seems to offer a more satisfactory basis for his life
    than
    > > the fluctuating and discontinuous existence of his 'mind'.
    >
    > Right, but there are other monisms than the materialist one, and
    > alternatives to strict theism.
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 11 2004 - 10:43:34 BST