> [Krimel] > I do like Whitehead but there are still problems with his process > philosophy. Not the least of which is his endorsement of the Platonic > ideals.
DM: Actually some people say this is real squiffy to hang this on Whitehead and I agree. Because Plato sees the realm of ideas as containing fixed and perfect forms like the circle which our actuality copies inaccurately. Whitehead is suggesting that everything must be possible before it becomes actual, but this means that the realm of forms contains all possible forms not some setof ideal forms. [Krimel] So Whitehead's footnote is to expand Plato's ideal realm. Personally I don't buy Plato's parallel universe or Whitehead's expanded footnote. > [Krimel > The point here is one of agency and freedom. Do electron and germs know > what they are doing? Could they act otherwise? I think not. DM: Why? They act, do they act because they have a need to change their state? The notion of inanimate action is one we derived from the creation of machines, how anthropomorphic can you get? [Krimel] They do not 'act' in the sense of being actors and they don't change state because they have 'needs'. Anthropomorphism hardly began with machines. Its origins are lost in prehistory when people worshiped animals and personified everything from the stars to the seasons. It's called animism. It is deep seated in our nature to personally relate to the inanimate the same way we related to other people. Collectively we have grown up a bit since the time of the cave bears and rationalizing animism does not make it sensible. DM: How do you create these non-human qualities. This is a fantasy you are having. [Krimel] Recognizing that the inorganic level is qualitatively different than the biological level took centuries to work out. Revert to primitive thought patterns if you will but I think, therefore I'll pass. DM: Was not creating inanimate action a peculiar and SOM driven idea? It allows us to treat nature like a thing that we can exploit and control. [Krimel] Even the pure sciences distinguish between the physical and biological and there is a growing realization within the sciences if not within politics that the failure to make this distinction causes severe problems. Even within the theological community it is something new to regard God's commandments to Adam to be an injunction toward stewardship rather than a license to exploit nature. > [Krimel] > Furthermore, even attempting to project our own inner states on others is > an iffy business. DM:Then stop doing it if you think so. I'd suggest we have no choice, I Admit it, you don't. You need to think harder to get my point and stop just giving me the same arguments, I get your positon but are you getting mine? [Krimel] I admit that all sorts of weird ass things are 'possible' even in your extreme and outlandish sense of the terms. The earth could be the breeding grounds for Von Danekin's Chariot's of the Gods. It's possible that the CIA has mind control satellites controlling our thoughts. We could be brains in vats. We could be sitting here negating the Hell out of Ham's absolute essence. Possibilities like these make entertaining fantasy but until they approach actuality; until they produce some tangible reason to be taken seriously as possibility I see no reason to waste time on them as anything more than amusements. > [Krimel] > Even with direct verbal reports from others there are > problems of lying or people simply being wrong about their own > motivations. > Trying to apply this back onto inanimate or lower level biological > critters is just foolishness. DM: DO we have a choice? The only reason we can project the notion of inanimate actions onto certain processes is because they are so static and consistent,but what does this prove. I always go for chocolate over vanilla milkshake but does that prove I am inanimate and driven by laws? Maybe a consistent action only proves that something is being valued as always a good quality action. [Krimel] Yes we do have a choice and to the extent that you always choose chocolate over vanilla your behavior is lawful. There are any number of biological laws that can describe within very close limits how individuals and groups of individuals will act. Marketing types live for this. Freedom is largely a matter of ignoring the lack of options. DM: Yes, up to a point, but we could say the same about humans but that would be odd, and maybe we need to do something to improve how we relate to nature before we wreck it. [Krimel] We could start be admitting how lawful our own behavior is and instead pretending that we are autonomous and letting marketeers and politicians exploit us, we could educate ourselves and our children on how it works. This might immunize them from its more pernicious effects. > [Krimel] > I have no especial allegiance to Dawkins but when he says that evolution > threatens the western religious tradition I think he is correct. DM:I agree that it offers a challenge that itmay or may not be able to respond to, it is not certain what will result. The term post-secularism is becoming a bit of a new fashion you know. [Krimel] If by 'post-secularism' you mean religious fundamentalism I see hopeful signs of its disintegration. I look forward to post-usingpostasaprefixism. DM: For me we need ways to accommodate the religious to get past these,in the end, phoney culture wars. [Krimel] I think traditional religions have a lot to offer in terms of morality and community but the knee jerk immune reaction against traditional formulations of divinity and challenges to scriptural authority have produced something hideous. They have perverted not only politics but their own doctrines. Those within theological circles who know better and have options to offer have been colossally impotent in doing anything in the least bit constructive about it. DM: Yes and no. What about divine revelation, can that have a meaning for us moderns? To me all creative thought is a revelation in some sense, as it emerges in a context that cannot determine it & what will emerge. [Krimel] When folks in the pews begin to see that Shakespeare, Mozart, John Lennon, the Wachowski and Cohn Brothers were divinely inspired, yes that will be an uncloudy day. DM: I think Dawkins is saying 'put up' in my terms or shut up. They certainly do neither and why should they? But equally whilst I welcome all tothe conversation and debate I say that the no one gets to rule out any forms of questioning or criticism as invalid due to some mystical groundless authority either divine or scientistic. [Krimel] I think that uncloudy day will come when people recognize that inspiration fuels both of Bohr's poles, clarity and precision. Mythology gives clarity Science provides precision. The old mythology loses focus when the clarity it offers does not sync with the precision science yields. New myths and reinterpretation of old myth can restore the balance but clinging to the old and resisting new inspiration just breeds your culture wars and in the end there can be only one. 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/
