[MD] Intellectual and Social

[John Carl]

> [Arlo]
> Smug superiority? For pointing out for the umpeenth bajillion time the
> willfully ignorant mischaracterization of "emergence"??


Lets clarify then with a small review of dialogue, Arlo.

John Previously said

You can call it oops, you can call it aha, but the fact is, you don't
understand it.

[Arlo]
What a strange rhetoric device? Telling people who *you* do not understand,
that they themselves don't understand what it is they are saying. Seems like
a convenient way to blame others for your own ignorance. But whatever...

To which John Previously replied,

"Hey Arlo, I understand smug superiority when I encounter it"

My attribution of "smug superiority" wasn't over anyone's knowledge of
theories, ideas or cosmologies, my attribution of smugness was toward the
implicit assumption that the possession of said theories and ideas
constituted an understanding of the emergence of life.

Nobody understands life's emergence.  Nobody.  All we have are ideas,
analogies and propositions.  But the combine of science/academia/media that
I've termed the AwDga cult, claims with full smugness and full superiority
that they DO have it all figured out.  They've got the exact age of the
universe figured out, they've got the emergence of life figured out, and
they transmit their theories as facts in the classroom and on the
discovery/nova outlets which propogate the smugness to countless dimwitted
millions.

You can't have the age of the universe in your pocket, because time itself
is a function of the universe. There is no timeline with which to measure
time.

duh.

And yet, nature shows and classrooms are full of  disinformation campaigns
intended to give the masses the confident answers that the masses crave.
 It's little different to my thinking than the catechisms of the medieval
church.



> You know, there has
> been so much done in this field, and it touches chaos and quantum physics
> and,
> on top of that, is a varied and rich field of thought. And yet the
> anti-intellectual lapdog repeats "oops" over and over again, a Wurlizter
> drumbeat of idiocy. And, as Krimel pointed out, if he (or anyone) was even
> halfway interested in actually *learning* something about the theory they
> beat
> on, the information is so readily available. But, John, if pointing out
> willful
> ignorance is "smug superiority", then enjoy your time with the willfully
> ignorant.
>
>
A known ignorance is better than an unconscious one.



> [John]
> My ignorance is freely chosen.
>
> [Arlo]
> If you are admittedly ignorant to the ideas behind theories of emergence,
> then
> your attacks only appear more pathetic. I mean, really, I don't understand
> a
> lot of quantum physics, but I know better than the try to sum up the field
> with
> moronic little jibes, and then boohoo when someone who does understand
> points
> out that I haven't got a clue.
>
>
I, like you don't understand all of quantum physics.  That makes me ignorant
of quantum physics, I admit.

Furthermore, my forays into readings in the field have led me to the
conclusion that more thinking is unlikely to produce total comprehension of
Quantum Physics.  Some really great thinkers have "gone there" and their
reports back from the high country of the mind lead me to the conclusion
that "more thinking" is not gonna do it.  Postulating Chaos as an answer
seems to me to be a phlogostonic solution to an intractable problem, but
hey, like I said, knock yourself out.  I can understand the baby's need for
a pacifier, I just don't need it stuck down MY throat.



> [John]
> Now that that's been established, would you mind educating an ignorant wood
> cutter on the exact mechanism of the emergence of life, the universe and
> everything?
>
> [Arlo]
> In one paragraph or less, right? And if I can't do that, well, the theories
> of
> emergence are proven to be inadequate.
>
> Actually, the MOQ is a theory of emergence. It describes the random,
> chaotic,
> unexpected, unpredictable occurrences as Dynamic Quality, and the AHA!
> latching
> of these unexpected events into static patterns.
>
>
Well here at least, we are on grounds of proper discussion.  I differ from
you in that I see "unpredicatable occurences" as falling into the category
of chaos.  And AHA latching is what I think of as DQ.  That is, I see DQ as
the realization of the good, in the moment.  So there is where the
discussion would take place.

If there was gonna be one, I mean.

Like, if I was actually smart enough to converse with all you high falutin'
experts.



> But if you want a "mechanism", some clock-work machine that chugs along and
> predictably creates (and destroys), then neither the MOQ nor "emergence" is
> for
> you.
>

Well I thought that was MY point, that the origins of life and everything
were beyond the boundaries of my knowledge, by definition.

But hey, I guess I was wrong about that.  I'll just keep waiting here for
the masters of AwDga
 to unfold the great mystery.

John the patient