Indeed Pat - Fritz Schumacher was such a disappointment because I associated him with 'Small is Beautiful' before realising none of the people I rather liked and who also liked the term had read that book! Habermas could barely say his name without spitting 'traitor'. I don't know what to say to Dawkers Lee - he is or was married to Lalla Ward (Romana) so you could try 'Professor Who'. His latest brand- spanking new argument is that 'selfish genes' (once understood not to be selfish as we understand the term) explain altruism. This 'argument' is little better than the suspicion some of us have whenever anyone does anything charitable - that they are in it for the selfish reasons of being regarded as good. One might equally suspect biology lecturers of writing academic journal papers simply to gain recognition, get out of teaching and marry actresses. I once thought I had missed out on the actress bit, but once divorced I realised I had been well acted-upon. I think the best play with Dawkles will be to listen intently to the long monologue, smile in agreement and then say, 'Why do you think anyone would want to listen to such obvious matters Dickie. Do I look as dumb as someone who thinks you are saying his grandmother was a chimpanzee?' I'll then pop up with my 'Sun hat' on asking if there's any truth in the rumours he is bonking chimps in order to prove we are apes or to produce an English fast bowler with extraordinary strength like an Australian 'cousins'.
On 5 Oct, 15:43, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5 Oct, 15:33, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > If we changed the debate from consciousness to some other terms, what > > Pat says would also hold true - perhaps of a general individual trying > > to establish self in social context. A good example of play with > > language unseating a singular use of a term. I only met Dawkins once > > and was only able to test his knowledge of cricket (thin). He'd just > > written a book with 'Reweaving the Rainbow' in it which read like 'The > > Moon's a Balloon' without the wit and with all the name-dropping. I > > think I might like Dawkers if I really knew him, but he seems like an > > opportunist regurgitating the same old stuff from this distance (he > > might do better to wonder publicly why the majority population remains > > unknowledgeable enough to need his endless repeats). > > I remember buying EF Schumacher's 'Guide for the Perplexed' years ago > > - needless to say, it was perplexing and utter dross, moaning on about > > some Swedish revelations and a fat, jolly woman living only on daily > > Eucharist. We are undoubtedly all here to be so ripped-off from time > > to time. I would guess Pat we have been ripped off by much baser > > 'over-definition' than consciousness has suffered. As you know, this > > tunes me into wondering why basic politics is so pitiful ... (several > > wasted years of revelatory books later!) ... many religions have > > suggested there can be nothing fair or just until we make such a > > material condition of living. The questions should be about how to > > live in plenty now we know we can establish this (I suspect most still > > do not realise this for quite obvious reasons). Poverty is related in > > very nasty ways to motivation, and social position to poverty rather > > than ability (having discovered we are animals we might do better at > > noting this is true in many animal societies). We could also be > > conscious that 'leadership' tends to out in nasty ways and we can be > > conscious of this. > > It all goes back to moving from a competition-based structure to > a cooperation-based structure, a social pradigm shift that REQUIRES > some top people (that is, people at the top) to lose their positions > and become, like the rest of us, mere mortals, rather than the gods > they think they are. In truth, the opposite is also true in that the > basest of us are lifted to the same level as are all the rest. No > more 'some animals are MORE equal'; rather, 'All Animals are Equally > Individual'. Read Maimonides' 'Guide for the Perplexed'; it's a FAR > better read!!! > > > > >I am not sure in any of this what leads what or > > what causes what. Some tiny 'mental' shift might be enough - but this > > in turn may only arise at a certain 'material' point - perhaps there > > are thresholds? In my book. most of 'us' have died long before we get > > to 'travel'. > > Just to return to the Dawk - there have been how, why, who, whose, > > whats and other questions in the traditional models of philosophy long > > accepted. There is no argued case that 'how' dominates in science > > that holds sway, even in knowledge justification based in scientific > > findings and methods. I would probably want to dispense with god in > > epistemology more than him, because theories of everything tend not to > > explain much how if any. The argument here is more with the > > megalomaniac Hegel wanting (even claiming) that to know anything you > > have to know everything. Dawkins should be using his influence on > > foreign policy idiots, not chanting African bishops. > > > On 5 Oct, 14:31, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 3 Oct, 13:14, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It's always possible we live in 'Delusionville' rather than as > > > > conscious, sentient beings. This would explain a lot of problematic > > > > nastiness like Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and the underperformance > > > > of Warrington Rugby League Football Club. However, as Roger Penrose > > > > points out, there seems no Earthly reason why evolution should have > > > > developed consciousness (assuming it has, as there is a potential > > > > chicken and egg here) as much complex happens other than in what we > > > > have named consciousness as an emergent property of human brains. > > > > Neural density is higher in parts of the brain we don't associate with > > > > consciousness as such an emergent property. After all, evolution > > > > tends to proceed by killing species off, job presumably done. > > > > > So 'why' consciousness? > > > > More importantly, Whose consciousness? If you say 'my consciousness', > > > you have already made a division/separation between your concept of > > > self and the consciousness--that relationship being that you consider > > > the consciousness 'yours'. So if the consciousness isn't you, as > > > evidenced by the separation made by considering it 'your > > > consciousness', whose is it? Once you've determined whose > > > consciousness it is you are discussing, its purpose might be more > > > readily available or more obviously discernable. ;-)- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
