[Ham] Consider that we've been parsing levels, dominance, patterns, intellect, evolution, and quality without so much as a mention of the "individual self". Steve pointed out that "personification of levels .. is muddling the
MOQ." Does it make sense to personify levels while at the same time dismissing the "person" who defines them? [Krimel] I don't think the MoQ does dismiss the individual. I think it is entirely about the individual and how the individual perceives and constructs a representation of the world. Personification does not mean that we could just rename the inorganic, biological and social, Tom, Dick and Harry. It means ascribing purpose and intention to them. Since you want to give purpose and intention to the cosmos, I wonder why you are complaining about this. [Ham] We talk about higher levels evolving out of lower levels, only to dominate the lower levels, as if man were just a passive bystander of a cosmic play. My question to you all is: What is the point of this endless war of conquest among levels of Quality if man is not its central focus? A while ago, Bo chastised me for bringing up the Anthropic Principle because Pirsig didn't sanction it: [Krimel] I don't know where you are getting the idea that anyone is saying man is a passive bystander. Certain people are active agents in the world but there are lots of constraints on their activities. We are constrained by inorganic law, our genetic heritage, social rules and the results of our individual life histories. But we are still, each of us, the central characters in our own dramas or tragedies or comedies. Personally mine is definitely sci-fi. I missed Bo's chastisement of your use of the Anthropic Principle but at one point you stated it like this: "Man produces the universe". This is just completely not what it says. It says, somewhat obviously, that self reflective beings can only come into existence in a universe that supports their existence. If the universe did not support self reflection there would be none. The fine tuning of the universe to support organisms like us is no mystery. We evolved to fit the existing conditions. They did not come into being to support us. It would be odd in fact if we were not perfectly suited to live in the world we find ourselves in. That would indeed take some explaining. [Ham] Who else but man does the "valuating" in this world? Of what use is Value without a subjective agent with a sense of what is good and evil, significant or trite, and the intelligence to move his reality toward wisdom and betterness? If man is not the measure of goodness, if the evolution of nature is an automatic process that goes on without human involvement, what cosmic purpose is served by man's creation? [Krimel] You are correct the word Value has no meaning without a subjective agent. Good and evil are terms that apply to our conditions. The universe is indifferent to flood and famines, quakes and drought, asteroids and supernovas. We on the other hand are decidedly not indifferent to them. Evolution is not an automatic process it is a dynamic process. Humans evolved on this planet as a response to conditions here. Since we became a species we have played an ever increasing role in changing the conditions here. We have driven other species into extinction, altered the habitats of others and radically altered the distribution of life forms across the globe. Cosmic purpose? This is an absurd notion. If I were to grant you that such a thing exists. Please, I am seriously begging you, to tell me what it is and how I would recognize it if I saw it. 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/
