Of course there is no end point to this sort of discussion. My mother used to say that some people like vanilla ice cream and others like chocolate. Why the difference? Who knows but lets let the vanilla ice cream people be, and let the chocolate ice cream people be and not try to convert them to another taste. Maybe deeply held differences are no more complicated than this.
arthur -----Original Message----- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 12:23 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Why do I write? Hi Arthur, At 20:53 18/05/02 -0400, you wrote: (AC) <<<< What hubris humans have to think that they can "figure" things out. >>>> It may be hubristic in the case of some, but in the case of others the attempt to understand the meaning of life is, quite simply, the most difficult and the most fascinating activity that they can do, and without being able to do this life would lose its savour. As I've mentioned to Ed, the minority of individuals who like to dwell on these things are, usually, highly practical people in many other more mundane matters. <<<< As I said in a much earlier posting, we are taxonimists and meaning seeking creatures. (Oh yes we are also novelty seeking creatures which justifies our continuing quest and legitimation of innovation) Somewhere in that fits much of science and religion. Nothing wrong with this but see it for what it is. >>>> But you can't disparage meaning- and pattern-seeking by saying "seeing it for what it is"! How do you know that this isn't the main activity of the universe? >>>> Keeping busy, keeping busy. And building social structure, etc. etc. But to think that with all the computers in the world we will understand "it", whatever that may be, sort boggles the mind and sounds a bit like science fiction. Stafford Beer the Cybernetician once said that the planner is homologous with the plan, that's why change doesn't come from within. He also said to understand humans one would need a meta intelligence, someone from outside the system who could see the system whole. I don't say there is nothing out there. As you know the only intellectually respectable position is to be an agnostic. >>>> I don't agree. The theist makes an act of faith in believing that there is a God. And he might be right. The atheist makes an act of faith in disbelieving in God. And he might be right. The agnostic (as normally defined) refuses to admit the possibility that the act of faith is the only practical way of proceeding in order to bear the weight of building pattern-perception and thinking upon it. (I don't know of any great philosopher who is agnostic.) As for me, I'm a pantheist because my act of faith is that the universe is self-aware (because I'm part of it and aware of it). >>> Having said that, I say let's forget about afterlife paradise and/or whether there is an edge to the universe, space and time and try to make the lot of people marginally better while they are alive on earth. >>> No, good intentions can often lead to great evils. I suggest that we try to understand the world better. It's patronising to think that we can help the poor. The poor are perfectly capable of helping themselves (as we did in the west) if they can clear away the myths that rule their lives. As I see it, each culture has a multitude of myths (and constantly acquiring new ones -- invented by the powerful to disarm the masses). The key objective within each culture should be to choose the myth that is muddying the waters most at any one time, and clarify that one next. To identify the ring-leader is the hardest part. Keith __________________________________________________________ "Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say." John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
