Hi Krimel, thanks for your lengthy reply.
2009/4/18 Krimel <[email protected]> > -KO > in Chapter 11 i think Pirsig offers the MoQ as both an underpinning of > evolutionary theory and as a philosophical explanation of teleology, and i > can accept both: there is virtual teleology in human life. > > [Krimel] > What Pirsig seems want in his account of evolution is similar to what he > wants when talking about iron filings having a "preference". He wants a > universe filled with purpose and free will, a universe that can in some > sense be held morally accountable. Would you have been more comfortable if he had said iron fillings 'are attracted' or 'have a tendency' or even 'are predisposed to...'? Do you think Dawkins shouldnt have talked about the 'selfish gene'? Maybe that is where Pirsig got his idea from! He is certainly not alone in wishing for moral accountability - i think everybody expects that - especially with regard to bankers! But nature does things its own way (now i am guilty), irrespective of what people think is best. > One of the great tragedies of my life occurred when I was about four. My > lifelong friend and companion TaBee had to be thrown away. As he lingers in > my memory, he was maybe 10 inches tall, black and white and dingy. I > presume > that at some stage, outside of my ability to recall, he was clean and fuzzy > and cuddly. I had cuddled him into baldness but even as his fur wore away > and he lost an eye, he was my best friend. It was a harsh lesson learning > that my best friend was not alive. He had no feelings. He could not talk > back. He was immune to pain and had no sense of humor. My parents bought me > a puppy but we lived in a city and the puppy ran out to the road. That was > that. In the end the "death" of TaBee was harder than the death of that > nameless pup. Sadly, no amount of rationalization then or now can breathe > life and purpose into an iron filing or a teddy bear. Tabee - like my panda who i used to knock across the room knowing he couldnt be hurt - served a purpose for you even though he was inanimate. He gave you friendship and showed you the meaning of pain - in a manner of speaking! > > -KO > When i am between > the horns of a dilemma it does not make sense to say that all those > transient quarks that momentarily comprise me are working together on my > behalf to find a solution to my problem - its only slightly more > understandable to consider that all my genes are together busy calculating > to help me; no, it really only makes proper sense to say that 'I', the > complete individual, is trying to come to a decision. In this sense, i > think, we do have purpose and intention. > > [Krimel] > We as creatures find it much easier to relate to other creatures. I've been avoiding the word 'creature' because it implies a creator - i prefer 'beings' - or beans! > Preference and intention are so integral to our nature that we see them in > everything. > When my computer acts funky, and what computer doesn't, I swear at it. But > this is just metaphorical. My laptop, which has replaced the bygone TaBee > as > my new best friend, does many things that are in fact "lifelike". I talk > about it thinking and taking its own sweet time. But that is just the echo > of my inner child. Any philosophy that attempts to imbue the universe with > purpose and intent is just regressing to the intellectual equivalent of > sucking its thumb. The individual behind Krimel is ultimately just a huge bunch of molecules organised as a human and yet you ascribe preference and intention to it. Where do we draw the line? It certainly seems to me that i too have preferences and intent and those properties have somehow emerged from the inorganic - wonders never cease! > > > But the problem with this regression runs deeper. To use your example, > let's > say my genes and the cells that comprise me are all agents of free will > with > desires and preferences all their own. Those desires and purposes have > almost nothing to do with me. My purposes and desires may be completely at > odds with those of my genes. I might get a vasectomy and my genes can just > blow it out their tiny spiraled asses. When I desire to drink too much, my > brain cells are sacrificed like prisoners of war on an Aztec holy day. My > purposes and desires take precedence over my cells and genes. Or if they > decide to run amok and cluster into malignant tumors, their hopes and > dreams > can put an end to mine. There is little or no overlap. I take your point but modern evolutionary thinking and science has to my mind successfully explained how our multifarious behaviours are still modeled for the purposes of survival - the genes are still in the driving seat. Also the way you talk about your desire to drink knowing that you are sacrificing your brain cells sounds like you think that your self is like a soul - disembodied from the flesh. > > > We have a long history of reading purpose and intent into the inanimate > world. Ancient peoples made gods and goddess of forces of nature but in the > end those forces are so capricious and at odds with human purpose that the > tales of their deeds wind up sounding ironic. Whatever purpose and > consciousness the timeless universe might have I am pretty sure it has > nothing good to do with me. Seeing it as alive and intentional might help > me > feel kinship to it. It might give me some emotional security or the hope > that if I can relate to it well enough I can sway its judgments and bend > its > will to mine. Like everyone else I am drawn to the Myth of Control. If I > cannot control my fate perhaps I can suck up to the powers that do. > > It has been a hard lesson for humanity to shake loose of this illusion of > consciousness in the inanimate world. I think it is childish to try to > resurrect it. I agree, i dont credit the idea of a conscious creator nor that a rock has consciousness either - i think consciousness is merely a fortune telling device in the shape of a human that has been developed through natural selection over millions of years - its purpose is to ensure survival. Purpose HAS arisen from the ashes! The 'why' of it is obvious to me, the 'how' is much more mysterious. [KO] > All this not withstanding the fact > that there is no detectable trace of a wispy 'I' pervading my brain or body > and therefore that 'I' is really illusory along with any will-power i > appear > to have. The wikipedia page on Teleology refers to this viewpoint as > 'intrinsic finality'. > > [Krimel] > Right, there is that watered down version of teleology that would classify > the Heat Death as teleology. It isnt beyond the realms of possibility that we will have migrated to a more suitable planet before the sun expands and engulfs the earth. > Unfortunately I don't think that is the kind of > teleology Pirsig is seeking to prop up. I think he is trying to construct a > philosophical thumb to suck. But don't let me get away with ignoring your > point about the illusory "I". > "I" just don't have time for that ATM. I just end by saying - God is my aspiration! -KO 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/
