> [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.
[KO] 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. [Krimel] About a month ago I had a fairly extended discussion of this with dmb. He basically ran off and left his position undefended. My point was that Pirsig asserts that we can substitute "preference" for "cause" without change in meaning. I think this is only true if we remove from the term "preference" any hint of the idea of volition or free will. Iron filings are not free to resist a magnetic field. Apples cannot chose to leave the security of the apple tree and float toward heaven. Once you remove this element of choice from the inorganic level you cannot just let it slip through the backdoor in the other levels. But this is precisely what happens. Dawkins is pretty careful about his use of terms and I don't get the feeling Pirsig as read him at all. Neither does he seem familiar with the work of Gould or Wilson. These seem to me to be inexcusable laps for someone writing a chapter on evolution in the late '80s and early '90s. [KO] 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! [Krimel] Sure and at the age of four I had a lot to learn. Heck, I still do. [KO] 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! [Krimel] Yes "I" am a collection of molecules and forces that have preference and intentions that mainly ensure that the molecules and forces retain their integrity. A big part of how they do this is by absorbing the past and allowing it to resonate in the present. And yes that is indeed wonder-full. [KO] 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. [Krimel] I, like William James, think that function is a better term than purpose. Our multifarious behaviors, in fact our genes, function to promote our survival. Or as Dawkins might have it, we function to promote the survival of our genes. It depends on which point of view you take and as I have tried to emphasize the ability to take different points of view is our crowning glory. [KO] 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. [Krimel] Right, although I would say "...it's "function" is to ensure survival." Living things are fires that can find their own fuel. We create the ashes we arise from. [KO] 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. [Krimel] I wholeheartedly agree. That is what I find so frustrating about the romantics, who seem to think that the answer lies in regressing to some imagined pastoral past. Or who think the answer is to gaze at our navels accepting our fate as the big rock falls. [KO] I just end by saying - God is my aspiration! [Krimel] LOL, well said. I think "God" is what is emerging from the expansion of awareness. He too is the product of evolution; not the source. 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/
