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 think your argument here is based on an incorrect understanding of the term anthropomorphic. It means ascribing human qualities to nonhuman things. It has nothing to do with the fact that all human understanding is human. 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 freedom and 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] Ok, and the amount of time we dwell on them is a matter of the grade we give to them. I believe that's about what I've said. >> [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. [Krimel] I have considered it. I have considered where this kind of thinking comes from and where it leads to. I have no use for it. But I agree that it is important to be aware of an to questions our own assumptions. 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] Most universities in this country offer degrees in religion and theology. It is difficult for me to imagine a university that does not offer up a variety of opinions. > [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? [Krimel] It is from the Highlander movie and TV show. In this instance it means that when religion and mythology butt heads with science they lose. They are hard headed and it might take a while but they adapt, change or lose. 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/
