[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: But Krim, this notion of what makes the inorganic different from
the organic is entirely a human made distinction like any other, it is
derived from human understandings of necessity, necessities we
know through our conscious experience. It's is all anthropomorphic
whether it is projected animism of living patterns or our projected
inanimism on what we designate as non-living. Sure this is a useful
distinction, but whether it tells us something about what it is like
to be a rock or a plant or a fish is all pretty dubious. My claim is that
you are being more anthropomorphic than me in thinking this
distinction is unquestionable.
[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.
DM: See, you can't escape my point. We are very concerned about
possibilities,
which ones are remote, which ones are close to becoming actual. We have to
see our freedomand our future in the context of all imaginable
possibilities, we
have to grade them, their desirability, their ability to be realised, their
near
impossibility,it is the context of everything we think and do.
[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: It's a way of looking at things. We should consider it, what it might
offer and mean,even if it is not our everyday normal way of thinking.
Only when we see that all our assumptions are choices we've made do we
become truly reflective and conscious.
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...
(did you see this 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: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: Post-secularism has nothing to do with fundamentalism but it does
suggest that there is no way to demonstrate the death of god, that god
talk reflects different values that can be rationally discussed. Of course,
many of us would not be interested in such talk but that gives us no
right to slap a ban on it. This may make more sense in the European
secular context than the US one. In the UK many religious people
feel very excluded by the secularism of the universities. This seems
wrong to me, as someone with no religious convictions.
.
[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: That what we should aim for.
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 to the 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.
DM One what?
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/
