[John] I don't think you were calling out to Krimel, exactly Platt. Although his mind does peep open a bit. He used to be anti-freewill and at least now he's agnostic on it.
[Krimel] I am theologically agnostic too but at this point it would literal take a miracle to move past that one. [John:] That's SOM, right? I mean, there are variations upon the whole sub/obj schema, but Sir Isaac certainly believed in it. It's the lowest common denominator of historical human thought, after all. [Krimel] The LCD? Not so much the mind/body problem comes in just before Newton with Descartes. It is a modernist invention. Pre-moderns seemed to see themselves in terms of their relationships to others and the community and not in SOM terms. [John:] I agree so far, Krimel. And I give Pirsig credit there. Not because all scientists have at least read ZAMM, (although I'd be willing to be many have) but he did presage a lot of the thinking that has evolved in the sciences. Not in a rigorously, philosophical academic way, as many seem to criticize him on, but in a sorta broad-brush, artistic way that made outlines broad enough and clear enough, and more importantly (Arlo!) VAGUE enough to invite evolutionary development to continue. [Krimel] I give Pirsig enormous credit for the broad outline he paints and the sheer number of insightful twists and spins he indeed presages. When his finger points, it's in the right direction even when he's off the target. It has been a great disappointment to me to see how botched up the MoQ get with a close reading (Matt's term). I rarely disagree with Arlo about anything and I definitely agree with that. > [Krimel] > a breathtaking picture of probabilistic interaction of determinism > without prediction. [John:] Ah well. The moronist position again. Tell me Krimel, what IS so attractive about infinite probabilility to you? Do you feel that hemmed in by any potential of theism, so this seems the unassailable place to resist its pull? [Krimel] It isn't "attractive." It is terrifying. But the function of rationality is to guide us beyond "emotional intelligence." If emotional intelligence were infallible we wouldn't need reason or rationality. If the only kinds of situations we face were hot stoves, reflex action would do the trick. Reflex action works pretty good much of the time but emotions work better and in more situations. Reason doesn't always work either but it is an improvement on what came before. Evolution does favor "betterness" it favors the odds in the casino of life. If you have an edge, any kind of edge, you can keep your shirt. If you have enough edge, (say, card counting or rule based thinking) you can own the casino. [John] But what does that break down to? What does "infinite probability" even mean? [Krimel] In an otherwise abysmal chapter Pirsig find an acorn with this: "Biological evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subatomic level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static inorganic forces at a superatomic level. They do this by selecting superatomic mechanisms in which a number of options are so evenly balanced that a weak Dynamic force can tip the balance one way or another." When he says weak Dynamic forces, read better odds. See, DQ as uncertainty. [John] It means there is no value to the cosmos. No real value IN the cosmos. No value underlaying the cosmos. [Krimel] We are in the cosmos and we imbue it with value, our values. Seriously talking about the inanimate world in terms of agency, preference and "betterness" is a retreat into a world of spirits, and thunder gods. Animism is universal in primitive peoples and small children. Grown-ups ought to know better. [John] It flies against everything the MoQ is and stands for. Which you must agree with, plainly there is value for you, you are here. Why then do you speak as if there were not? [Krimel] It does fly in the face of some people's interpretation of the MoQ, possibly even Pirsig's. As mentioned earlier Pirsig paints in broad strokes and it's no secret I think he missed a few spots. But then I also see a lot of merit in the argument Barthes presents in "The Death of the Author." Pirsig's opinion on the meaning of his text is just his opinion on the meaning a the text. > [Krimel] > But the Newtonian world view is unsatisfactory. When it undergirds your > system of beliefs, it produces the feeling of dissatisfaction Birch talks > about. Personally I don't think a retreat into superstition, animism, > panpsychic supernaturalism is the road out of the mess. I think instead the > concepts derived from systems, theory, probabilistic models, chaos and the > many things I have talked about over the past five years do a much better > job, are more comprehensive, aesthetically beautiful, emotionally > satisfying and conform more comfortably immediate experience. [John:] This is where I'm wondering why. I realize that it's a cherished view because it gives you good feelings and all that. What inquirying minds want to know is, why? How? How does chaos connect to "comprehensive, aesthetically beautiful, emotionally satisfying" when the connotations of chaos, randomness and such value-less mechanisms, are nothing but nihilistic and anti-life? [Krimel] Getting a good feeling from chaos and entropy is definitely an acquired taste. But look at it this way: the fact that you are here at all means the odds are in your favor. Or look at it this way: perhaps there is some grand cosmic purpose. What is it? Whose is it? What would lead you to think that your personal purpose is in line with a grand cosmic purpose. Maybe God created mankind because he collects dead Jews and Cambodians. We think our purposes ought to align with the creator's because scriptures tells us so. All scriptures were written by people who had barely moved past banging rocks together. When those tales were first told fire was a new technology corrupting the minds of the younger generations. Broad strokes are great and we have lots in common with our ancient forbearers'. We owe them our respect but hardly blind allegiance. It's been a long, long time but there is an old Sean Connery movie "Zardoz" that touches on this. > [Krimel] > The MoQ as you, dmb and > AWGI is nothing more than this retreat into the Mythos. > > [John:] It's all mythos baby. >From the beginning til now, the logos is just one extended evolutionary development of man's efforts to tell himself stories about reality. From gods to math, we have made a narrative out of our experience. In turn, our narrative brings about interpretation of new experience and the mythos evolves. Part of our confusion and angst stems from the fact that our modern age is so varied that we're exposed to choice in our myths. Man wasn't made for that and he gets way confused. He needs a sense of over-ridding value, a belief in a moral compass that pragmatically works. Nihilistic probability, chaotic chance at the core of our being and cosmos, just ain't gonna cut it. But they do, evidently, for you. Explain. [Krimel] It's a small point but St. John tells us that "In the beginning was the Logos..." Mythos is Logos after we're done with it. Or, it is other people's Logos. Logos survives as Mythos because even though the logic has proven faulty, it retains emotional impact. Mythos survives when to story is worth repeating. Nihilistic probability, and chaotic chance are just facts about the universe, they are not at the core of our being. In fact just the opposite. At the core of our being are heuristics and strategies for assessing and beating the odds. We have a built in motivation to survive and thrive. That is what pattern recognition and emotions are for. They give us an edge against the House. Pattern recognition lets us create a detailed picture of the world on the basis of limited information. Gladwell talks about this in his one of his books, "Blink," I think. We believe that more information will help us make better decisions. It turns out this is not the case. More information tends to overwhelm us. We over think problems and make bad decisions. We go with our gut because it works much of the time. Intelligence is not necessarily a function of reason. But our gut is also often tragically wrong and rational step by step methodical thinking more often than not improves our odds. It allows us to see Truth in what scares the living shit out of us. If Truth is a species of the Good then sometimes what's Good for us tastes terrible. I believe the MoQ shows us a better way: Out of a cacophony of sensory > clatter (Quality) and we detect patterns of relative certainty (SQ) against > a background of the uncertainty (DQ). We produce meaning from the > meaningless. > > John: Well if it's all just "we" doing the creating and producing, then I can at least understand how you find comfort at being the center of the cosmos. Must be an ego rush, at least. But how does one slip out of the solipsistic wells of silence? How do you handle conflict with others? Power politics? Force? Celebrity contests? Stuff you all see on tv, all the time? I dunno Krimel. I think you oughta examine your programming. John 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 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
