Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 21:25:13 BST

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD Evolution"

    Hi

    sorry, thought this was a Pirsig site.
    I am pretty sure that Darwinism is discussed
    in Lila and placed in the larger context of MOQ
    to show its limitations. But I can't be bothered to have a look
    at the moment. I was trying to break this chat
    out of a narrow line of argument. I have read Pirsig
    in the last few months, my views are not from Pirsig at all
    I merely translated them into the language he uses.
    I as also saying that my problem is with the whole of science
    not just Darwin. The problem is that science should be
    placed in its box as only one form of knowledge. We can only
    have knowledge of what we experience, what we experience is far
    richer than what can be measured. I enjoy science but have
    found philosophy and literature far richer in terms of understanding
    human beings. The sort of stuff the populist neo-Dariwnists write
    is just philistine. And as for materialism, as the physicist Paul Davies
    says,
    to paraphrase:
    the concept of matter can probably now be described as a myth.

    regards
    DM

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <abahn@comcast.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 6:03 PM
    Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

    > Hi David:
    >
    > You conclude: "You're a fan, I'm not."
    >
    > Andy: Well, I think fan is overstating it a bit. I admire Darwin and
    from what
    > you have said I assume you admire him also. We also both seem to agree
    that the
    > Darwinian research program has been useful and should be maintained.
    >
    > You said: "It is also very important to put science in its SOM context. It
    is SOM
    > based, consequently it has great difficulty with approach the
    characteristics
    > split off from reality and dumped into the subject. There are other
    approaches
    > to reality, MOQ being a broader one than SOM. Above all I think SOM is
    derived
    > from a fear of Becoming/contingency that is built up by theistic thinking
    and
    > the idea of God as the master of contingency, that is taken up in the
    notion of
    > the self/subject into science, that becomes a dualism without the subject,
    that
    > produces scientific materism, that is a view of reality with one of your
    eyes
    > shut. There's a potted history of 2,500 years of thought for you."
    >
    > Andy: Yeah, I was kinda waiting for your arguments to denegrate to this.
    > Looking to Pirsig for an authority and trying to lump Darwinism in with
    SOM and
    > then looking to Scott and throwing Scientific Materialism in to boot. I
    have
    > already gone about with this approach. Dueling Dogmas. We won't get
    anywhere.
    > Suffice it to say, I don't think you will find Pisig anywhere condemning
    > Darwinism. Many Darwinists could be inspired by the ideas found in
    Pirsigs work
    > and many also might think he was influenced to some extent by Darwin. One
    > long-time contributer to the discussion who we heard from this morning
    (Jonathon
    > Marder) finds Pirsigs MOQ completely compatable with Darwinism and his
    opinion
    > is usually considered a voice of reason from all sides here.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Andy
    >
    > D
    > > Hi
    > >
    > > I said: "and that the current state of knowledge makes it quite hard to
    > > > believe in something that does exist, i.e. actual human beings of
    everyday
    > > > experience."
    > > >
    > > > Andy: You lost me here. I am unsure what you are saying. Can you
    > > rephrase?
    > >
    > > I mean that if you were from another universe and only read science
    books
    > > you would have very little idea what a human being was like.
    > >
    > > I am probably mainly concerned with the populist neo-Darwinist
    presentation
    > > of
    > > speculation as informed by science. It is not what I call science. I
    think
    > > a lot of people are very mislead by them. Whan I said it is annyoing, I
    > > meant it is annoying for
    > > neo-Darwinists that they can only discuss important aspects of human
    > > existence via
    > > speculation, I think the nature of these speculations make Darwinism
    > > less-reputable
    > > than it might otherwise be. And once again, its a theory, it is not very
    > > convincing, and
    > > a lot of research is done in a Darwinian framework only because no one
    has
    > > come up
    > > with a better idea. We constantly get fed the aspects of Darwinism that
    are
    > > plausible,
    > > although not on this excellent site, a more rounded view would also
    discuss
    > > its limitations.
    > > You're a fan, I'm not. It is also very important to put science in its
    SOM
    > > context. It is SOM
    > > based, consequently it has great difficulty with approach the
    > > characteristics split off from reality
    > > and dumped into the subject. There are other approaches to reality, MOQ
    > > being a broader
    > > one than SOM. Above all I think SOM is derived from a fear of
    > > Becoming/contingency that
    > > is built up by theistic thinking and the idea of God as the master of
    > > contingency, that is taken up
    > > in the notion of the self/subject into science, that becomes a dualism
    > > without the subject, that produces
    > > scientific materism, that is a view of reality with one of your eyes
    shut.
    > > There's a potted history of
    > > 2,500 years of thought for you.
    > >
    > > DM
    > > science claims
    > > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: <abahn@comcast.net>
    > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 1:54 PM
    > > Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
    > >
    > >
    > > > Hi David,
    > > >
    > > > Ok. So for the most part we agree. But I still want to quibble with
    you.
    > > >
    > > > You said: "The 'annoying ' reference is that it is annoying that
    Darwinism
    > > > is the best theory we have in orthodox science, that we want
    > > > to discuss the way evolution effects life but we are stuck with
    > > > an inadequate theory when we try to do so."
    > > >
    > > > Andy: Well, You want to do some things and biologists want to do
    other
    > > things.
    > > > I don't have any attachment to Darwinism, I just don't understand why
    > > everyone
    > > > gets so emotional about it. Pick any theory in science and we can work
    > > around
    > > > the edges looking for faults. In fact this is the role of science. I
    > > don't see
    > > > how Darwinism or evolution is any different from relativity, QUantum
    > > mechanics,
    > > > or any theory you want to choose. None of them are airtight, none of
    them
    > > > answer the specific question you want answered, so all of them can be
    > > described
    > > > as inadequate by some perspective. WHy is everyone so wigged out
    about
    > > > Darwinism? I want to suggest that it is not Darwinism that is the
    > > source of
    > > > your annoyance, but rather the annoyance resides in you. Charles
    Bukowski
    > > says,
    > > > "Only the boring get bored." Could we also say, "Only the annoying
    get
    > > > annoyed." I am not calling you annoying, I am saying you have
    misplaced
    > > the
    > > > source for your annoyance.
    > > >
    > > > You said: "The problem I suspect is that we are prepared to talk about
    > > human
    > > > beings acting with purpose but for metaphysical reasons we do not seem
    to
    > > think
    > > > that purpose plays a role anywhere else in nature."
    > > >
    > > > Andy: Purpose in nature to me sounds too much like design. That might
    be
    > > my
    > > > problem. But, I just don't know how there can be a purpose in nature
    > > without
    > > > going outside nature. To some ultimate view. ANd I don't want to do
    > > that.
    > > > That seems like a much bigger problem.
    > > >
    > > > You said: "The point about Sheldrake is that he proposes a way in
    which
    > > we can
    > > > begin to see how purpose and dynamic driven reality might find its way
    > > into
    > > > laying down static patterns in a way more likely to produce evolution
    than
    > > the
    > > > information passed in genes."
    > > >
    > > > Andy: I found Sheldrake fascinating when I read his work. I have his
    > > book.
    > > > But I was waiting for biologists to also find his work exciting.
    Perhaps
    > > his
    > > > day is yet to come. But so far biologist have not found his ideas
    very
    > > useful.
    > > > In fact, they seem to have systematically refuted his every point. I
    > > think
    > > > philosophers find Sheldrake more interesting than Darwin. But what
    should
    > > this
    > > > say about philosophers?
    > > >
    > > > You said: "Genes according to neo-Darwiniam orthodoxy do not record
    > > information
    > > > from the environment in any direct way, they only mutate randomly and
    then
    > > pass
    > > > on those genes that happen to survive."
    > > >
    > > > Andy: Genes do much more than this from my understanding. I think
    both of
    > > us
    > > > have a very superficial understanding of how genes, mutations and
    natural
    > > > selection works. But, biologists, obviously find neo-Darwinism very
    > > useful for
    > > > the work they do. This is a strong enough endorsement for the
    orthodoxy
    > > for me.
    > > > Why should philosophers and historians of science dictate what theory
    > > > biologists should use because we are confused by the non-biological
    > > questions we
    > > > are asking?
    > > >
    > > > You said: "Sheldrake asks if there is a mechanism for passing on
    > > onformation
    > > > form one generation to the next about the structure of the organism at
    a
    > > higher
    > > > level than genes."
    > > >
    > > > Andy: And Sheldrake should be commended for asking that question.
    > > >
    > > > You said: "At the present time it is not possible to answer this
    question
    > > due to
    > > > our limited understanding of ontogenesis and morphogenesis."
    > > >
    > > > Andy: Are you sure about this? And if you are, what does this mean
    to
    > > > biologists and the work they are doing? Does this throw a kink in
    their
    > > work?
    > > > Is it going to cause the whole Darwinist world view to come crashing
    down?
    > > I
    > > > really don't think so. Darwinism has weathered much stronger
    criticisms
    > > and
    > > > attacks than this over its century and a half existence. Like I said,
    I
    > > think
    > > > the most amazing aspect of Darwinism is how many of Charles Darwin's
    > > original
    > > > ideas have managed to remain intact through all the years of
    criticisms.
    > > > Particularly when it seems he was just going upon conjecture without
    > > having the
    > > > evidence of genes, dna, or everything we have subsequently found in
    the
    > > fossil
    > > > records. You want to talk about wasps being amazing, and I agree, but
    I
    > > find
    > > > this pretty damn amazing too.
    > > >
    > > > You said: "PS I do not use the word truth, I prefer to ask plauisible
    > > > explanation, and a lot of the problem I have with science (apart from
    > > loving it)
    > > > is that it is always talking as if closure is around the corner,"
    > > >
    > > > Andy: I agree that this is a problem when some scienctists talk like
    > > this.
    > > > However, I don't think all scientists talk like this. I am not even
    sure
    > > if a
    > > > majority of them do.
    > > >
    > > > You said: "and that the current state of knowledge makes it quite hard
    to
    > > > believe in something that does exist, i.e. actual human beings of
    everyday
    > > > experience."
    > > >
    > > > Andy: You lost me here. I am unsure what you are saying. Can you
    > > rephrase?
    > > >
    > > > Thanks,
    > > > Andy
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > 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
    > >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 21:31:51 BST