Krimel asked dmb:"How can some kind of undetectable all pervading awareness is not be supernatural?"
John said: ...I know how annoying an unanswered question can be. Maybe you should rephrase it. I think the "is not be" part is especially confusing. dmb says:The typo doesn't confuse me so much as the question itself. If the idea of inorganic preferences is predicated on the same empirical evidence as the laws of physics, then in what sense is it "undetectable"? Even more confusing is the main charge of supernaturalism. Again, if the idea of inorganic preferences is based on the observation of natural phenomenon, in what sense is that phenomenon "supernatural"? I can only conclude that that such questions are not genuine questions. In this case, I suppose it's a kind of rhetorical question. Its purpose is to ridicule, not elicit answers. In the early modern period, before the physical sciences had settled in the shape we take for granted today, the mechanical model had a rival. If history had moved a little differently in those early days, it's possible that today's physicists would be talking about the universe in organic, biological metaphors rather than natural law or cause and effect. One of the pre-Socratic philosophers even talked about metal's reaction to magnets in terms of its "life". I don't know if Pirsig was deliberately making a reference to that ancient text in using the metal filings around a magnet for an example of inorganic behavior, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he was. In any case, such ideas have been around for a long time and modern science flirted with that model such that it really could have gone either way. The mechanical model and the organic model each have there advantages and disadvantages, I suppose. If women weren't locked out of the game, I'd bet my toolbox that the life-based model would have won out. Or think about it in terms of the animate and inanimate. The distinction is about what is self-moving and what isn't. Rocks don't move unless acted upon. The animating force is life. When the biological processes cease upon death, that movement disappears. It's childlike common sense that everybody knows. Just ask any old stiff. But that distinction doesn't really hold up much beyond common sense. Beyond the macro world, the difference gets pretty blurry. Ask a micro-biologist or bio-chemist where they would draw the line. And, except for some very cold spots, what in the universe doesn't move? If string theory is right, movement is all there is and its not the kind of motion that's given to simple laws either. It matters how we talk about these things. It matters which metaphors we choose. But they are just that. They're just different ways of thinking about what's known in experience. The same events occur in nature either way. The choice of metaphors and conceptualizations is going to be based on what works for what purpose and, obviously, the idea of inorganic preferences is supposed to serve the coherence of the MOQ. It's purpose is to unify the inorganic with the other three levels, where the expression of preferences can hardly be doubted. When the idea of inorganic preference is compared to the ideas that physicists themselves are producing these days, it's not all that weird. As a figure of speech, it's downright ordinary. "That walky-talky doesn't like the rain", I said to my son when he was four years old. He put the toy away. "Lawnmowers don't like old gasoline", I told my neighbor. He put fresh gas in it. I'm not saying that my refrigerator is in love with magnets, but you'd understand what was meant if I did. That's how I see. The idea of inorganic preferences is about as undetectable as a lawnmower, is about as supernatural as a refrigerator magnet, and Krimel's question is not one that even a four year-old needs to ask. Oh, and by the way, this is at least the second time I answered your question that's not really a question. Maybe even the third time. Once would have been more than enough. You might not agree with these answers or even understand them but pretending I didn't answer is kind of silly. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009 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/
