[MD] False Messiah

[David M]

Hi DMB/Scott

I agree with Scott that DMB has faith in secular myths
but just don't get that it is faith. Pirsig takes more care
but does reject theism, I think he is saying he does not
need it, as a mystic might, because he knows, I think
a theistic path upthe same mountain would probably get
Pirsig's assent, I wonder?

Scott yes the universality of value is a postulate, a change
to our conceptual framework, and one that is plausible and
not contradicted by experience/evidence. No more no less.
And like all good conceptual adjustments in throws an
interesting new and revealing grid over experience, no
more no less. The claim is one of being a more coherent
grid than the SOM/mechanistic causal one. That's seems
a good case. No more no less.

DM



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] False Messiah


> DMB,
>
> Scott said to Peter:
> How do you know that, given that you are not a stick or a stone? They have
> value to us, of course, but the MOQ says they have value in themselves, 
> and
> that's what I'm asking about. ...What we know through scientific 
> instruments
> tells us nothing of whether or not electrons experience value. Yet the MOQ
> says they do. In other words, you are dodging the issue.
>
> dmb says:
> I'm with Peter here. As I see it, Scott is asking Peter to explain a claim
> that nobody made. I don't think anybody is saying that they can read the
> "minds" of subatomic particles or any other kind of inorganic level
> patterns.
>
> Scott:
> I didn't claim that anybody could read the "minds" of subatomic particles.
> What I said that is that the MOQ claims that inorganic static patterns are
> inorganic static patterns *of value*. Since nobody can read the minds of
> subatomic particles, where is the evidence for that claim?
>
> DMB continued:
> The MOQ simply asks us to replace causality with preferences, to
> replace physcial laws with patterns of preferences. Nobody is saying that
> they know what its like to be a rock or an electron. This is no a matter 
> of
> faith, because this alternative way of describing inorganic reality is 
> still
> based on the very same labratory data, from the very same scientific
> instruments. In other words, this alternative explanation is based on
> empirical data. Its not based on faith and its not even an assumption. Its
> just one valid conclusion based on the known facts.
>
> Scott:
> Yes, to say that there are "preferences" rather than, say, valueless
> mechanism is an alternative explanation. What is the basis for adopting 
> that
> alternative explanation given that it is undetectable? How do you
> demonstrate that the inorganic is or is not valueless mechanism? What is
> this empirical data that tells you to use the words 'value' and 
> 'preference'
> in describing inorganic static patterns rather than not using those terms?
> The very same laboratory data would hold if I claimed that what electrons
> are "really" doing is dancing to the music of the spheres. But of course 
> to
> claim that is absurd. Yet the MOQ claims that there is value involved in
> what electrons do. It does so because it has faith in the idea that 
> Quality
> is omnipresent -- and so do I. But I recognize this as faith, that is, it 
> is
> consistent with what mystics say, even though I have no empirical evidence
> for it. There is empirical evidence for Quality, but only in humans and
> higher animals. Not for the inorganic.
>
> Scott said to Peter:
> ...I obviously agree that if faith results in one's stopping one's 
> thinking,
> then it is bad. But what I've tried to show is that -- for those who take 
> to
> heart the dictum "reason requires faith and faith requires reason", faith
> leads to a new and higher level of thinking, not its stoppage. That makes 
> it
> desirable.
>
> dmb says:
> I think the only way to make faith valuable here is to re-define the 
> concept
> as your heart-felt dictum apparently attempts to do. What does it mean to
> say that reason requires faith when faith is understood as believe in the
> absence of evidence, or even contrary to evidence?
>
> Scott:
> Like I said, Christianity has been using the word 'faith' in this way for
> about 1800 years, with the exception of some Protestants. It is you (and
> Pirsig) who are defining 'faith' in a way to belittle it -- as if it were
> nothing but giving assent to propositions.
>
> DMB said:
> Faith is trust given
> rather than earned, don't you think?
>
> Scott:
> That's why faith requires reason. If faith can't stand up to reason, it is
> unjustified.
>
> DMB concluded:
> Among the classic figures in
> Christianity there is a tendency to put reason in the service of faith, to
> make it subservient to to faith, faith's little bitch. That's what I smell
> here and I think it really stinks.
>
> Scott:
> Fine. Do without. No need to insult those who find value, including
> intellectual value, in faith, though, especially when your understanding 
> of
> faith is based on secular myth. Like God, you want to take faith as
> something understandable, which makes it easier to reject. But faith, like
> God to someone with faith in God, is a mystery. In other words, you treat
> faith-talk, like God-talk, literally, in order to justify your 
> anti-theism.
>
> - Scott
>
> 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/
>