[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

ian glendinning psybertron at gmail.com
Fri Dec 22 04:41:57 PST 2006 

Case, DMB et al, I too have tried and failed to like Rorty, but ..

Was the word "just" actually in the quote you made, or just in your
own paraphrase ?

I too would say science is one amongst many belief systems. But I
wouldn't add any pejorative addjectives. Science, whilst limited, has
proven to be a much better belief system than any form of blind faith
in authority. (Trouble is we find "faith" in something mysterious at
the limits to most forms of rationale, even those that embrace
contingency.)

Ian

On 12/18/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> It would be hard to overstate my lack of interest in Rorty. I liked Kuhn
> though. Rorty's voice made me want to bitch slap him.
>
> Case
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of david buchanan
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 12:04 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist
>
> Case said to Ian:
> I heard a taped radio broadcast recently featuring Dennett and Roty. Roty
> was claiming that the impact of Kuhn was to render science just one form of
> seeking truth among many. He claimed that the intellectual achievement of
> the mapping the human genome was on a par with the development of English
> common law.
>
> dmb says:
> I'm guessing that "Roty" is a typo and you are talking about Richard Rorty.
> When Ken Wilber says that extreme postmodernism equalizes religion and
> science by shooting them both in the head, he is talking about Richard
> Rorty. I recently finished a paper about rorty's refusal to have a theory of
>
> truth. You saw me warming up for that. Anyway, I think this is basically a
> harsh version of the thing Pirsig complained about in those passages on the
> paralysis and ingratitude of SOM intellectuals, which I just posted in the
> "Food for Thought" thread. There is some overlap insofar as both Rorty and
> Pirsig reject the idea of a single objective truth, but Rorty insists that
> this means there is no truth at all. All we can hope for, he says, is
> intersubjective agreement among cultural peers, which he openly admits is a
> form of ethnocentrism. We can't have objectivity so we have to settle for
> solidarity instead, he says. As I like to say, he rejects SOM in some sense
> but remains trapped within its materialist assumptions. His rejection of
> objectivity only has the effect of making him embrace subjectivity and
> spends most of his intellectual energy qualifying what that means and how
> that works.
>
> >
> >Dennett offered up a less radical view of Kuhn. What I came away with is
> >the
> >notion that sure, science is a product of and extension of culture but in
> >the hierarchy of truth science is the bottom. When any other system of
> >thought comes in conflict with science the other system blinks first.
> >
> >I think what Dawkins is up to, is just being in you face about this. Even
> >Dennett said that he has disagreed with Dawkins about this in the past
> >chiefly because he sees Dawkins as being more rude than wrong. But Dennett
> >also acknowledged that a bit more confrontation might not be such a bad
> >thing.
> >
> >Case
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> >[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> >Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:55 PM
> >To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist
> >
> >Case,
> >
> >In the sense that a classical physicist or engineer or athlete (or
> >even a motorcycle mechanic) would understand energy - yes, "including
> >energy as a physical object".
> >
> >Why is that a bad thing ?
> >Because it ignores MoQ.
> >
> >We need to be sure we're not just getting into a semantic debate here
> >- since my first mistake was to respond to your request for a
> >definition :-)
> >
> >Dawkins is a biologist, whose day to day need of physics is classical,
> >common-sensical. Matter (material stuff having significant mass and
> >occupying space) and energy are physical objects. When he builds
> >genetic models of his evolutionary world, he probably doesn't  worry
> >about the physical objects and subjects with which he is dealing not
> >being real. He is happy to be "objective" and "logically positive" in
> >dealing with these objects.
> >
> >An MoQ'er knows that physical (material) objects (and subjects) are
> >dependent "things" arising from our experience (and interpretation) of
> >quality events / interactions. Quality is primary reality. A
> >materialist who sees the kind of physical world described above is
> >just plain wrong in MoQ terms. Such a scientist excludes consideration
> >of non-objective processes beyond his world model - like which side of
> >the bed he got out of, or whether he noticed the sun was shining, on
> >the morning of a given experiment - in fact he goes to great lengths
> >to deliberately exclude such considerations :-) He is only studying
> >half the world - if he is lucky.
> >
> >Now if we start talking about a quantum physicist, rather than a macro
> >"scientist", we may find that the kind of "materialism" described
> >above breaks down. Because we find striking parallel's between
> >something like "energy" at this scale and Pirsigian quality. At this
> >level even a physicist seems to know that our material world is some
> >apparition emergent from patterns of energetic interactions, and
> >MoQers find themselves with someone to debate.
> >
> >If we eventually conclude that "energy" at this scale is synonymous
> >with quality, then we might (as I have done before) be able to claim
> >we are physicalist (but not a materialist). But we'd just be playing
> >with words.
> >
> >Ian
> >
> >On 12/12/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> > > Ok so why would that be a bad thing? Would that include energy?
> > > Case
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> > > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:46 PM
> > > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist
> > >
> > > Case,
> > >
> > > I use the term in a broad sense, that primary reality is the existence
> > > of "physical objects" (and I read its use that way in the news story
> > > too)
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/12/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> > > > Could you define materialism?
> > > > Case
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> > > > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:32 PM
> > > > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > > > Subject: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist
> > > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > This news story on a $27m Museum of Creation in "Middle America"
> > > > (Kentucky) perhaps shows the ludicrous excess of faith-based world
> > > > views. Frightening that visitors might actually value this kind of
> > > > misinformation.
> > > >
> > > > The telling issue for me though is the quote from the organisation,
> > > > justifying literal belief in Genesis, as just as valid an "a priori"
> > > > assumption as Dawkins belief in materialism.
> > > >
> > > > I'd have to say I agree. Thank god it's not a matter of choice between
> > > > the two for MoQ'ers. Literal materialism is as dead as literal gods.
> > > > Neither a priori assumption is valid.
> > > >
> > > > Ian
> > > > 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/
> > > >
> > > > 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/
> > > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> >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/
> >
> >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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Visit MSN Holiday Challenge for your chance to win up to $50,000 in Holiday
> cash from MSN today!
> http://www.msnholidaychallenge.com/index.aspx?ocid=tagline&locale=en-us
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list