Krimel said: Odd, it seems arrogant to me to assume that much of anything about us is radically different than what we see in other species. We are a product of natural selection and the same rules apply to us as to every other species. Comparing our social manifestations to that of other species, looking at how they arise from similar conditions and serve similar functions seems, what the word I am looking for... natural. On the other hand assuming that we are unique seems to me, what's that other word... supernatural.
dmb says: The line between the social and biological is as supernatural and as the line between biological and inorganic. [Krimel] When you start with the assumption that consciousness or some form animism is ever-present in nature; then yeah, the supernatural is everywhere. It is like Wilbur insisting that "spirit" precedes the big bang or that the universe is a figment of the imagination of some Hindu God. [dmb] To say human society is no different than an ant colony or a pack of wolves is to reduce one level of reality to the simpler one from which it emerged. Before you jump to conclusions, this is not to say that there are no similarities or that we can't learn anything from them. I'm just saying that explaining social behavior in terms of its biological antecedents distorts the social behavior in question. [Krimel] No one is saying that; anymore than anyone is saying that western culture is no different from eastern culture. The issue is whether or not those difference are sufficient to claim there is no similarity or that such similarity as we find is insignificant. I don't think one can understand human social behavior without reference to its biological antecedents; without appealing to magic and superstition. [dmb] It would be like explaining biological reproduction in the terms of physics or chemistry. Physics can illuminate biology but the fact is they play by different rules. [Krimel] What do you think the Human Genome project was if not an attempt to understand reproduction in terms of chemistry? It is exceedingly peculiar I think to claim out one side of your mouth that all things are "one" or that all things are interconnected and arising dependently. Then to claim out of the other side of your mouth that metaphysically, there are discrete levels squabbling against one another. [dmb] Obviously, Pirsig did not invent this distinction. The MOQ's levels add a little something to distinctions that are otherwise already widely recognized and employed, even in the way we distinguish between scientific disciplines. Pirsig only adds to this by saying that the levels do not simply grow from simple to complex but rather they actually oppose each other in some way. [Krimel] The use of the standard college catalog as a metaphysical tool was a clever heuristic. Turning that heuristic into some kind of rigid hierarchy over the past 10 years on this forum has resulted in nothing but bickering over stamp collecting. The idea that the levels are "opposed" to each other is just a blatant attempt to dogmatize a metaphor. It is not even possible for biology to revolt against physics that is simply not how emergence works. [dmb] There is a qualitative difference, he says, such their differences can actually create conflict. [Krimel] Qualitative differences are almost always in the eye of the beholder. They are relative and contextual and certainly do not form the basis for rigid structures. [dmb] It's an evolutionary explanation of moral struggle. Among other things, it's supposed to show what's underneath our notions of good and evil, progress and decline, growth and decay. It's supposed to show how we can be amateur philosophers and features of the food chain at the same time - and what the differences are. [Krimel] Does anyone here really think Pirsig succeeds in creating a philosophical basis for morality or even for reliably making moral distinctions and judgments? Kant, Mill, Rawls, and a bevy of moral and ethical philosophers have failed but Pirsig succeeds? I think not. You don't solve the problem of morality by setting up a system where everything works towards "betterness." You don't solve the problem of good and evil by simply ignoring evil. [dmb] Plato was operating within the rules of physics and was a member of the food chain. But if you say he was JUST a feature of the biosphere, you have definitely left some important things out of your explanation. That's the problem with reductionism. It reduces the object of inquiry to something else and so effectively eliminates the subject matter in question. [Krimel] It's a two way street you know. If you claim Plato was JUST a spiritual being unrelated to the biosphere all you have is superstition. It's parts and wholes, bottom-up versus top-down, discrete versus continuous and in every case things work both ways. That is the nature of all duality. I have never understood metaphysics to be an excuse for avoiding ideas. Rather I thought the point of a metaphysics is to help use assimilate new ideas. It ought to provide us with a simple conceptual structure, a set of lens, a filter or Indra's net that minimizes the amount of effort we have to put into reducing uncertainty in an uncertain universe. The aim of such a conceptual system is to find the smallest set of concepts that allows us to process the greatest number of percepts. Seeking to justify a 21st century systems in terms of 19th century concepts seems utterly doomed from my perspective. Don't get me wrong the 19th century is a great place to look for historical antecedent but for Christ sake at some point it is time to move on; unless of course, what you are looking for in the 19th century is an excuse to stay there. 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/md/archives.html
