From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Nov 19 2005 - 15:28:16 GMT
Case,
Thanks for a interesting response.
> Platt,
> Nice post! Rather than respond in pieces I will just offer up some general
> thoughts. With regards to the 4 levels I have argued frequently that they
> are not discrete. One level does not arise, then divorce itself from levels
> under it.
I don't think Pirsig ever claimed that a level divorces itself from levels
under it. The clearest explanation of his position that I can find
appeared in his SODV paper: (emphasis added)
"In the block diagram of the Metaphysics of Quality we see that each
higher level of evolution rests on and is supported by the next lower
level of evolution and CANNOT DO WITHOUT IT. There is no intellect that
can independently reach and make contact with inorganic patterns. It must
go through both society and biology to reach them. In the past science has
insisted on the necessity of biological proofs, that is, proofs in terms
of sense data, and it has tried to discard social patterns as a source of
scientific knowledge. When Bohr says we are suspended in language I think
he means you cannot get rid of the social contexts either."
> The issue of divine intervention is of course a perennial one. Buckminster
> Fuller said once said, "Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think
> we're not. Either way, the implications are staggering." I think the same
> applies to creation. There is no discontinuity in our present understand of
> origins.
Not sure what you mean by "no discontinuity." Are not the origins of the
universe, life and mind still much debated with no causative agents yet
identified that lend themselves to repeatable experiment or falsification?
> But I think in these discussions we neglect the inorganic and
> biological levels. We even speak of them as the "lower" levels. I see no
> possibility of understanding the "upper" levels without a better grip on
> the lower ones. The continuous increase in complexity on Planet Earth is
> caused by the constant inflow and capture of solar radiation. If we must
> speak of God, let it be Ra.
Is Ra the Egyptian "father of Gods?"
Are you suggesting that the sun's rays are the cause of our moral sense? I
suppose one could argue that without the sun we wouldn't be here and
therefore it must be the prime cause. But, the same could be said about
the Big Bang that eventually caused our sun, along with a billion or so
others. And then you have to ask, "What caused the Big Bang?" and you're
off to the races of infinite regress beyond the limits of "natural"
explanations.
> For me at least the real issue with regards to naturalism vs spiritualism
> is that most of the qualities the spiritualist ascribes to God are now ours
> or certainly within our grasp. We can control our environment to the point
> that we can destroy it. We can manipulate life processes, create new life
> forms, even whole new kinds of beings from computer viruses to
> corporations. We recreate the world in our own image. We create new worlds
> of imagination.
You may be right, but I think we're a long way from creating universes
such as the one we inhabit much less destroying our own planet.
> Certainly most religions attempt to show how man is created in Gods image,
> or perhaps how God is created in ours. I find this attempt to project
> ourselves into nature misguided. We introduce purpose into the universe and
> the universe was doing fine before we got here and will do find if we elect
> to leave. Purpose is so central to what we are that we can not imagine a
> world without it. But the real question isn't what would God do, it is what
> are we going to do now that we are Gods. Your term betterness can only mean
> better for us.
Since we as much a part of nature as rocks and trees and the weather, and
since we exhibit purpose I don't see much of leap to suggest nature is
purposeful. I would ask, "What is the purpose of saying nature has no
purpose?"
While I don't agree we are Gods, I do agree the term betterness means
better for you and me and the man behind the tree, not for the pleasure of
a being somewhere over the rainbow.
> I embrace your definition of miracle, btw. You mention a list of events for
> which perfectly natural explanations exist and still call them miraculous.
> They are that and beautiful as well. Even if no Gods are responsible for
> their existence it seems to me that WE have some responsibility of their
> future.
I don't know about the existence of natural explanations for occurrences
such as something from nothing, life from no-life, and mind from no-mind.
My education is obviously not complete. But I agree with the beauty of
those events, suggesting to me at any rate a divine presence. Otherwise I
can't think of any reason for beauty to be part of our world.
Regards,
Platt
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 Nov 19 2005 - 15:29:58 GMT