What are we meant to be launching our attack on Ham ? Reality is experience ? Man is (in the cognitive sense) the creator of his universe ? No brainers, surely ? Which Pirsigian could argue ?
(I had to look up inimical by the way, yes, actually in a dictionary) Did the person that used it first use in the sense you understood it ? Physics clearly supports human life, through the marvellous complexity of evolution / ermergence etc, but clearly life is not reducible / explicable directly in terms of physical laws. In the wrong hands (scientific / objective) physics can be hostile to life, exclusive application of phsyical laws to living situations is lethal. Ian On 3/20/08, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Platt and Arlo -- > > > [Platt]: > > As for the laws of physics being inimical to human life, I draw on Pirsig: > > "The law of gravity, for example, is perhaps the most ruthlessly static > > pattern of order in the universe. So, correspondingly, there is no single > > living thing that does not thumb its nose at that law day in and day out. > > ..." > > Humans thumb their noses at many things -- politicians for one. But to > assert that the laws of the universe are "inimical" to human life is not > only an exaggeration, it's ludicrous. Anyone who has studied embryology, > physiology, or immunology has to marvel at the exquisite design of nature's > organisms and the life processes that sustain them. If I learned anything > as a naive young pre-med student, it was that complexity is no challenge for > nature. The design itself may not be "beautiful" in an esthetic sense, > Platt, but the overall scheme most definitely is. > > But I suspect that you and Arlo have misinterpreted me and the Lanza quote. > For example, Arlo says: > > [H]ad those variables been different, the cosmos WOULD be > > teaming with life. Perhaps the universe collapsed and exploded > > a zillion times, and this one time we see as special is actually the > > one comparatively devoid? > > That, of course, is logically plausible -- IF you believe that ontogeny > (creation) is only a result of probability (e.g., the chaos theory). But > here's where the misconception becomes apparent... > > > [I]sn't it also arrogant to assume "we" are the final leg in this chain? > > Maybe, like the dinosaurs, we exist only so that our decomposing > > bodies will one day grant a future species some form of fuel. > > We have this illusion of being on a pinnacle because we can > > look back but never ahead. > > Let me set you both straight as to the Essentialist ontology. ... > > The universe is a valuistic PRODUCT of human experience. It isn't as if > matter and energy conspired to create man, or that after an infinite number > of possible interactions, one of them miraculously produced man. Man > produces the universe. That's the anthropic principle in four simple words. > > Now, while Arlo shouts "Arrogance!" and Platt finds a suitable rebuff from > Pirsig, consider this concept for a moment. If what is called > "intelligent", "beautiful" or "valuable" is always the judgment > of a human being, would such assessments of the universe exist in his > absence? Is it not more plausible that the purposeful pattern of evolution > and the physical laws guiding it toward the development of a value-sensible > creature are intrinsic to human cognizance rather than to an external > reality? > > I seem to recall Mr. Pirsig telling us that experience equals reality. If > this is true, and if experience is not just a passive response to neural > stimuli but the "effective cause" of phenomena, then this "miracle" in one > of our own making. It is born of the essence of man, which is > value-sensibility. We are one with the universe, not because our brains and > bodies are composed of its elements but because our "psychic essence" is > derived from its absolute source. Man is not only the "choicemaker" of his > universe, he is in the cognitive sense its Creator. > > Please allow this idea to "settle in", gentlemen, before launching your > verbal attack. > > Cheers, > Ham > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
