> [Krimel] > Thanks Craig this would indeed appear to be Pirsig's account of the > origins of life. But it is just a description. It fails to address the > how, when or where this happened. There is not even an account of why > except through the personification of Dynamic force, which assumes Godlike
> power. It invents,it ascends, it preserves, it skirts around problems. [Platt] Speaking of "Godlike power," the following from "The Spectrum of Consciousness" by Ken Wilber puts a 'Godlike' spin on energy, the foundation of physics: [cut and paste quote to end of post] It would never occur to most SOM materialists to view energy this way. But, that's why we seek original thinkers like Wilber and Pirsig -- to break out of our cocoons of static assumptions. [Krimel] The only thing good I have to say about Wilber is that he makes more sense than Ham. He at least acknowledges that whatever weird-o rationalization you put forth to resurrect your favorite dead deity, those rationalizations have to be reconciled with science. They can stand outside of science but they can not run counter to it. The problem with what Wilber says in the quote you offer is that it is not true. It basardizes both physics and Hinduism in an attempt at reconciliation. This follows Wilber's over all program to show that everyone agrees with everyone else no matter what. Physics insists that the energy it studies must be measurable. Its Values must be quantifiable. Hindus do not insist on this. They would claim that life is a form of energy, consciousness is energy, God is energy. When energy is transformed in physics it follows certain rules. Not so in Hinduism. I will admit that what I find most attractive about Pirsig is his synthesis of Taoist metaphysics with Darwin's conception of static patterns emerging and responding to change. I think his analysis suffers from his insistence on the necessity of 'betterness' and his personification of abstractions. In Wilber these tendencies are on steroids. He is the new age's answer to Leo Straus, putting a pseudo-intellectual face on preconceived doctrine. [Wilber] "One can hardly imagine that in picking up a college physic textbook one is actually handling a 'religious' document that has carefully been scrubbed clear of all dirty words such as intuition, eternity and Godhead. But the central concern of physical science revolves around the concept of energy and it transformations, whether these transformations occur in molecules, biological systems or computers. And how is Energy described? It can never be created or destroyed, put together nor taken apart, and on the whole it is neither increasing nor decreasing, remaining always constant. This, in fact, is the First Law of Thermodynamics. Further, the Energy of the universe, which remains forever constant, nevertheless undergoes 'transformations' or 'manifestations,' for all types of energy and matter, whether kinetic, thermal, or molecular, are spoken of as 'Forms of Energy.' As a matter of fact, all phenomena in the universe are ultimately nothing but forms of Energy, so that this Energy more or less 'underlies' all material things. This is pure physics, but it sounds strangely familiar, and on begins to wonder whether we are discussing physics or Hinduism. Ultimately, it matter not one whit whether we say that all things are forms of Energy or forms of Brahman." 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/
