[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[David M]

Case/Platt

Don't forget science has to resort to controlled experiments
to get at the small amount of order that exists in the world.
You have to force out all the natural disorder, agency,chance
to do controlled scientific experiments where you can handle the
measurement and maths.

Regards
David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?


> [Platt]
> First of all, the MOQ takes much of the uncertainty out of morality. At
> least, that's the claim -- a morality based on reason.
>
> [Case]
> Well, if that the case things aren't going very well are they? If reason 
> and
> the MoQ accomplished this you and Arlo would be left talking about the
> weather.
>
> [Platt]
> Second, morality "in the sense of a moral code" extends far beyond
> "interpersonal interactions" in the MOQ, as Pirsig describes:
>
> "What the evolutionary structure of the Metaphysics of Quality shows is
> that there is not just one moral system. There are many. In the
> Metaphysics of Quality there's the morality called the "laws of
> nature," by which inorganic patterns triumph over chaos; there is a
> morality called the law of the jungle" where biology triumphs over the
> inorganic forces of starvation and death; there's a morality where
> social patterns triumph over biology, "the law"; and there is an
> intellectual morality, which is still struggling in its attempts to
> control society. Each of these sets of moral codes is no more related
> to the other than novels are to flip-flops." (Lila, 13)
>
> To me this simply means that from the lowliest particle to the highest
> cosmological theory, moral codes rule. The choices made in the face of
> uncertainty are inevitably moral choices. It's not that uncertainty
> underlies everything.  It's that morality does  That's the message of
> the MOQ -- a message SOM science ignores because morality is beyond
> anything objectively measurable and thus something best left to pastors
> and priests.
>
>
> [Case]
> I think you are putting the wrong spin on this quote. Take the statement,
> "inorganic patterns triumph over chaos" this does not mean that subatomic
> particles are building motes and catapults to fend of the barbarian 
> hordes.
> It means that we can see patterns in nature. We observe regularity.
> Similarly biology does not triumph over inorganic forces it exists because
> of them. One level emerges from the others.
>
> The important piece I think you are missing is: "Each of these sets of 
> moral
> codes is no more related to the other than novels are to flip-flops." 
> Pirsig
> is not changing the law of nature. If you ask me what is similar between 
> the
> laws of physics and the laws of human morality, I would say that both are
> human inventions. The laws of physics are developed and have been hugely
> successful in helping us reduce uncertainty about the natural world and 
> out
> place in it. From houses to telescopes science gives us physical and 
> mental
> tools for understanding the world and or place in it. Human cultures and
> religions serve this same function. We know from experiments on animals 
> and
> from watching the evening news that uncertainty and rapid change in the
> environment produce discomfort even panic. If it persists long enough 
> humans
> at least become superstitious even ritualistic.
>
> While physics and the law are different in their particulars they serve 
> the
> same function. In a sense they also confront change and survival that is
> dynamic and static quality.
>
> It is true that uncertainty has been around forever but until the first 
> part
> of the last century the goal of most human enterprises was to reduce or
> eliminate it. In the Newtonian era many thought this had been 
> accomplished.
> What we seem to have learned more recently is that this is simple not
> possible. Fortunately we have also developed new tools for studying the
> problem of uncertainty, statistics and probability theory, computers that
> can calculate iterative processes in a few minutes that would have taken
> centuries to work out by hand.
>
> I think that the MoQ can provide a metaphysical underpinning for seeing 
> how
> uncertainty works, how it affects us, why we do what we do in response to
> it. Just as determinism grew out of Newton and moral relativity grew out 
> of
> Einstein I see a need for us to get a better grip on uncertainty as it is
> coming to be understood.
>
> In many ways because it is so old and because it is so built into our very
> nature, uncertainty is the water in our fishbowl. A couple of times you 
> have
> asked me questions that have made me give answers that I found surprising.
> The idea that entire industries like gambling, insurance, the stock
> market... are constructed to deal specifically with uncertainty really
> shocked me. In fact the more I thought about it the harder it was for me 
> to
> think of anything that we do that is not tied to our need to predict and
> control our environment and how it affects us. And yet it seems if you 
> look
> for a systematic way of understanding this beyond the specifics of
> particular fields and disciplines what we get is mostly folklore. I think
> the MoQ have the potential to tie this stuff together.
>
> The biggest obstacle that I see in the path of this is the idea that DQ is
> good.
>
> 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/
>