[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Heather Perella]

Case,

> [Case]
> I suppose I have not been paying attention but I was
> not aware that Dawkins
> and Gould were in substantial disagreement about
> much of anything.

     In Gould's thousands of pages book, "The
Structure of Evolutionary Theory", he criticizes
Dawkins on the self-gene approach.  Dawkins approach
became the most off the mark approach to Gould. 


     [Case]
> Dawkins emphasized the importance on individuals
surviving
> over species evolution
> but the fact is the results are that same. 

     Gould goes into a whole defining of 'what are
individuals?', which he defines to be different from
organisms.  I assume by individuals that's what you
meant - organisms.  Dawkins, from what I remember,
wasn't emphasizing organisms over species in
evolution.  Dawkins emphasized genes over organism
over species, etc...  Gould established a hierarchy of
levels (nothing superior or inferior is to be assumed
by this hierarchy).  Evolution can be accommodated by
any of the levels, it depends on if the levels have
the spandrels (features that are open to
creativity/uses; this term is applicable from biology
to art).
     As to the results are the same, well, the results
are the same to any analogy, code of art, one may
have.  Yet, any true (notice the lower case, no pun
intended) code of art takes practice so the quality of
what is being practiced, the art-form, has the
excellence that meets the standards of the
practitioner?  Question mark due to who/what/or maybe
even the where (earth/sky, etc...) are these answers,
to these ways of asking questions, would the answers
have to meet a standard of excellence?  What defines
the standard?  The static patterns are the standards
of excellence.  Yet, when it comes to intelligence,
social, and maybe other levels (eugenics on the
biological level, landscaping on the organic, etc...)
the standards of excellence are not only being
defined, but applied, if one holds application as a
standard of excellence.  
     This is also what any Japanese metallurgist while
making a sword would say when speaking of spirit.  For
any sword to meet the standard of excellence, the
spirit (everything involved) must come together 'just
right', the practice has met a standard of excellence
that is not only deemed excellent by the person making
the sword, but the result, the sword, is to be an
excellent sword - of a good quality.  For this to
happen in any art, all involved in meeting these
standards must point towards the sword being
excellent, as in Pirsig pointing towards quality, yet,
its' full definition can not be said in mere words,
nor in mere application, I would say the awareness
(intellectual level) would also be sharp, clear, and
distinct in recognizing what makes a sword quality,
so, the quality can be met, again, repeated over and
over in numerous swords.

Thanks,
SA 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com