Hi Guys, I think I will jump in here to possibly clear up any misunderstanding. The comments I posted concerning my degree and what it made me were in response to Marsha's claim that since Wallace had a biography which included a luminary it made him completely believable. I will address some of your comments below:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:27 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yea, I can't resist either, although it's early in the afternoon and I > haven't had any drinks. > > It certainly is SOMETHING to earn the most advanced degree from one of the > top universities in the world. It might not make you a philosopher in > Pirsig's sense but it sure is a good start and you'd surely qualify as a > top-notch philosophologist. I mean, false modesty in one thing but ridiculous > is quite another. > > On the other hand, Mark's claim is not very easy to believe. I've spent a lot > of time listening to people with advanced degrees in philosophy and I just > don't hear that kind of quality in Mark's words. My Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D.) was in the discipline of biotechnology. I acquired this from the Imperial College (ranked in the top 5 of universities in the world by peer balloting, look it up). My thesis defense was performed in front of H. Allen O. Hill and John Albery. Due to circumstances, they were both at the University of Oxford at that time. John Albery had just become the dean of Christchurch College, and although he was my designated "internal" examiner, he left Imperial before I got my degree. He is very well known in his field and is a Fellow of the Royal Society. Now, you may say that a Ph.D in Biotechnology is not a degree in Philosophy. However, you would be mistaken since any of the sciences are considered philosophies. A presentation of the world through biology, or physics for that matter, is no different from the presentation of the world through metaphysics. They are both presentations. A science is a metaphysics. To believe otherwise implies that somehow the depiction of reality through science is not a man-made depiction. Now, if you want to talk physical biochemistry, perhaps you would see some quality. Do you want to give it a try. I can reference some of my publications if you want. My interest in the history of philosophy and metaphysics itself is a hobby. As such, I can consider myself free of any "educational bias" on the subject much in the same way that Pirsig was. > > The claim seems very strange for almost opposite reasons. [1] I would have > thought that anyone would be proud of such an accomplishment and [2] I would > have thought the fruits of such a long labor would be pretty obviously be > reflected in a high quality of thought and speech. A highly trained mind is > almost as obvious as a buff body, you know? It shows. Mark should have the > intellectual equivalent of six-pack abs and a tight ass. Don't see it. What I am proud of is my accomplishments on a day to day basis. I have no interest in what happened 20 years ago, although I was proud of it at the time. Living in the past has no use for me, and is essentially unreal as far as I am concerned. A degree does not anyone make. It is how they use it daily that makes someone. Too many academics seem to think that they are superior to others because of their degree. All that a degree is, is a lot of hard work. Again, in terms of [2] let's discuss physical biochemistry for a change. Let's speak of electron tunneling within proteins, or the impact of water activity on tertiary structure. My philosophical posts certainly open me up to much learning. However, if one is to pull rank on me, I am sure I could out philosophize the best of them. My tools are different than say, somebody who has come through the ranks of philosophical training and must resort to the words of others to make themselves believable. Tracing the history of philosophy as seems to be the mode sometimes in this forum, as you stated, is not philosophy. How about if we discuss the ongoing battle between Ontology and Epistemology which is what MoQ delves into. Let us do so without invoking some dead philosopher. Want to give it a try? > > What can you tell me about your studies, Mark? Was it very different from > Pirsig's project, perhaps? Maybe there is a good reason why I can't see you > as bringing philosophical expertise to the table? I realize it's a damn rude > question and maybe too personal but I really am wondering what's up here. > It's hard to imagine how anyone could get through such an ordeal without > becoming very lucid and fluent so that you'd be both dazzling and > tremendously helpful in a place like this. Don't see it. What's up with that? My studies involved the electron transfer between proteins and electrode surfaces. The idea was to make computers that can taste and smell. The biological specificity of enzymes was coupled to the signal amplification of electronic circuitry. The trick was to bridge the biological with the solid state. Originally I did this through the use of electron shuttles. Later on I modified enzymes with redox (inorganic) couples so that the enzyme could directly transfer electrons to a solid electrode. This formed a hybrid sensor that had both biological as well as electronic components. It really blurred the lines between the living and the inanimate. This of course has philosophical implications. I became interested in energy transfer within the biological and see the energy of life to the electron flow from food we eat to the terminal electron acceptor, Oxygen. It is this flow, which can be analogized to a waterfall that gives us the sensation of life. We harness this flow in the same way a waterwheel harness a waterfall. The fact that electrons tunnel within our brains to provide neuronal signals implies that part of our consciousness exists outside of this universe. When electrons tunnel, they disappear and reappear somewhere else. Our consciousness depends on this disappearance and reappearance. This also has philosophical implications in terms of metaphysics. Early on in Ph.D. studies I was mapping serotonin receptors within the brain. These are the receptors which mescaline and LSD act on to produce their "mystical" effects. Such mapping has resulted in the creation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors which form the basis for modern antidepressants, which are psychoactive by definition. Our view of reality has much of its physical basis in serotonin. Now, serotonin contains a modified benzene ring within it. This was famously analogized by Keukele as resembling two snakes eating their own tails. It is interesting that such an analogy can also be used in consciousness. This also has metaphysical implications. My interests are much broader than just those examples. Once science is seen for the metaphysics it is, much can be used in terms of its applications to more formal philosophies. Science does not support metaphysics in any way since it is metaphysics. However, it can certainly broaden the analogies. I hope this clears up some of the misunderstanding. All that I have are my words as I post in this forum. I am more than happy to get involved in any debate and test wits. My tools will not necessarily be those of standard metaphysics, and involve rhetoric. But tools of standard metaphysics only continue the static nature of a world view presentation. As Pirsig said, a spiritual rationalism is necessary. dmb, what is your interpretation of spiritual rationalism? Regards, Mark H. Smit, Ph.D. > > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:22:58 -0500 >> To: [email protected] >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] The Hero's journey >> >> [Mark to Marsha] >> I spent 6 years doing do doctorate of philosophy (Ph.D.) work, and was >> ordained >> by the powers that be at Oxford. I then spent years in internship. Does >> this >> make me a philosopher? Does this make me anything? I think not. >> >> [Arlo] >> Maybe it's late. Maybe its the Bourbon. Maybe I'm going to regret this... >> >> Why does this not make you anything, Mark? Let's step back and say a degree >> in >> Art History doesn't make you a painter (or dancer, or poet, etc), but it >> still >> makes you something. I mean, if it didn't improve you, then what was the >> point? >> Have we really hit a point when 'knowledge', however defined, is a 'bad >> thing'?? >> >> Can you think, for example, of a single other 'profession' that actually >> champions 'never studied this'?... Do you want a surgeon who says "I never >> studied this 'heart' crap, but hey, I have certain beliefs about human nature >> an that makes me qualified to do this."?... >> >> See, this is part of this anti-intellectual agenda I don't understand... yes, >> there IS a difference between doing philosophy and reading about philosophy, >> between being an expert in Nietzsche and not knowing who Nietzsche was... and >> call that philosophy/philosophology, but do we really want to turn that into >> a >> championing of ignorance? Do you think Pirsig really meant by that that we >> should become dumber to become more enlightenend?... >> >> 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 > 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
