[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ian glendinning]

Hi Arlo, defense accepted (I wasn't attacking)

This is a good summary
"Emergence is always an "AHA!", only the master planner's seek to
diminish it as an "oops"."

In "social" dealing with "master planners" you are indeed right to be
cautious about providing them with the amunition of loaded words, or
allowing their unguarded use. (Though that is a two way contract.)

In making progress "here" in MoQ intellectual debating land ... I
think we need different rules.

Ian

On 1/19/07, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Ian]
> Arlo, and you are absolutely right to be concerned. My point is, it is not the
> word people use, but their actions and the way they use the words in real
> dialogues and over longer periods. That's how you find out what these people
> mean by the word, their intentions.
>
> [Arlo]
> I agree, Ian. But I do think we need to be careful with laden words. For
> example, I have said, and would say again, that "God" (in the Occidental use)
> could also be a useful, anthropological metaphor for discussing "emergence".
> But if I said "Quality is God", and meant that in the analogous way Pirsig said
> "Quality is the Tao", the chances for being misunderstood is quite significant
> because most people do not use "God" as a metaphorical term.
>
> Let's also recall that this started when _Platt_ advanced "intelligent design"
> as an alternative to "emergence" (even though you and I would argue they are
> not antonymical but mutually explanatory). It was Platt's specific history with
> advancing "intelligent design" in precisely the way I've been arguing against
> that prompted my response. Do you really think Platt sees "intelligent design"
> as an "anthropological metaphor"? If he does, why does he believe "ID" and
> "emergence" are opposing ideas? You see, Platt's history with the word is to
> pander to Judeo-Christians who see "intelligent design" as proof of _their_
> God. He reveals this every time he uses that "oops" portrayal. The only
> alternative to his dismissive term is "pre-planned intent". We were "designed"
> before we existed, which is exactly what emergence argues against. In
> emergence, the design is what emerges out of collective activity. To oppose
> this the design must have existed beforehand (literal God), or was deliberately
> enacted as if a "cell inventor" came up with the idea for the human body one
> day while lying near a pond. Now, I could be wrong. If so, perhaps Platt can
> explain why intelligent design, as an anthropological metaphor is opposed to
> emergence?
>
> For point of discussion, I've had similar talks with people who see the
> dinosaurs as a "planned creation" solely for the purpose of providing use with
> oil in modern times. This is because any other "teleology" would have to see
> the dinosaurs as an "oops", otherwise what was the "purpose" of inhabiting the
> world with dinosaurs for millions and millions of years but not people? Its
> either an "oops" or part of a master plan (oil). Now, of course, WE'D see the
> third way out, that it was an "AHA!" (to use Case's words) that lasted so long
> as was environmentally feasible, and when that collapsed a new direction
> emerged as context and situation changed. And after who knows how many
> dynamically inspired static evolutions, eventually "we" emerged (at the risk of
> oversimplification). Neither "oops" nor "master plan". Emergence is always an
> "AHA!", only the master planner's seek to diminish it as an "oops".
>
> [Ian]
> I do recoil slightly at the "these people" apparent generalisation, but you mean
> the ones you have exprience of dealing with.
>
> [Arlo]
> Of course. And this is what drives my caution. The ID rank and file do not want
> metaphor, they want backdoor theism. And as such I recoil from giving them
> inadvertant fodder.
>
> [Ian]
> Personally I like to give any new individual encounter the benefit of the doubt
> with words used, until we have some transaction history .... Ah, right so
> you're are that kind of ID person, now I know how to deal with you ... rather
> than knee jerk reaction to the words.
>
> [Arlo]
> And again, my reply was specific to the word as brought into the dialogue by
> Platt. So, in my defense, there is some substantiation to my particular
> reaction.
>
>
> 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/
>