[Mark] Yes, I am fine to call this symbolically encoded descriptions of reality, I think I know what you mean there. Your yardstick for "better", seems all to be based around survival. This is the evolution view as presented by Darwin, and furthered by many. If you use those rules for determining betterness, I can't argue. But first you need to explain why survival denotes betterness. Adaptability is another Darwinian notion for better, which also needs explanation.
I don't know if I would cast the sides as geological vs angry god since just the way you name them already provides some kind of bias. Let's look at it this way. Let's say man warms up the earth so much that the weather changes and there is massive destruction such as proposed in the myth of the great flood. Now, would you say that man destroyed himself, or would you say that the earth destroyed man? This is the difference between a man-made extinction or an extinction as part of the immune system of the Earth? So, I would ask, is a man-made explanation better and more truthful, or is one based on nature better and more truthful. Which discipline has morality as its foundation, Science or religion? Which discipline tells one to be kind to his neighbor rather than compete until the last man is standing. (I'm talking about foundation, not actual uses.) Which discipline state that there is a forgiving power, and which one states that there is no meaning and one life. Which discipline believes that the intellect of man has no match, and which one puts man into perspective as a child? OK, which one do you choose, plate tectonics or gods? Which one do you think will last longer? Cheers, Mark [Mark] Yes, everything is an analogy. And, that is not a bad thing, it is just an analogy. [Arlo] I think we are, then, in agreement of the starting point of all symbolically encoded descriptions of reality. The question then becomes, "which analogy/analogies are better?" I've already suggested one rubric to consider this, when we talked about the "geological" versus "angry god" accounts of the Haitian earthquake, and that is which allows us to better mediate and/or ameliorate our experiences in the world? The "geologic analogy", if you will, allows us to build buildings that can withstand quakes of certain scales, to predict to certain degrees where/when, to locate areas of heightened probability, etc. Added into the larger "geologic analogy" body of information we can greatly improve the human condition compared to a time when a "god analogy" was the prevailing lens. "Climateology" allows us to redirect cruise ships, alter the course of airplanes, prepare medical and emergency response, etc. Admittedly, this is is a larger socio-economic context that does not always heed nor pay attention to anything but greed and profit (e.g. Hurricane Katrina). But these "analogies" still provide us with better mediation and amelioration than believing that Hurricanes are caused by pissed-off Leprechauns. If you were moving in an apartment building in San Francisco, which analogy would serve you better? Would you prefer a landlord to say "this building was built using the most recent architectural methods to withstand geologic tremors" or "this building was blessed by a priest so god will protect it when he sends the next earthquake here to punish the rabble"? Would you prefer following an alert channel that sounded the earliest possible warning to deep geological activity, or to a channel where a preacher warned of impending punishment by god? A second rubric, as others have suggested, is adaptability. Analogies need a degree of fluidity to self-correct as better analogies are developed. This is not to say that analogies should change on a whim either. "Geological analogies" to understand earthquakes tend to evolve, change or die as better analogies are developed. "Angry god" analogies tend to be very static, and are held often in deliberate contrariness to experience. But here we can just ask, "which "analogies" show more adaptability?" This is, of course, not to say that the present-day "geological analogy" is perfect, or "the best" we can ever hope for. I think the second rubric demonstrates this. And I think Pirsig's criticisms are valid ways of improving the overall analogies Western Culture has embraced. This is also not to say there is NO value whatsoever in "angry god analogies" of earthquakes. Historically, such beliefs bound societies, fostered inclusion and ensured conformity in the absence of civil law. (I'm not talking overall "theistic analogies" here, just aspects of an "angry god punishes via earthquakes" analogy). Obviously, this analogy holds great value to Pat Robertson, but I'd suspect this has more to do with his role consolidating a power-base for his church than anything else. To that goal, the "angry god" analogy is quite valuable. 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/ 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/
