[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[markhsmit]

[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/