[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Arlo previously]
> The Universe, and mind, emerged from Quality interactions among individuals in
> increasingly complex collectives.
> 
> [Platt]
> Where did such a system come from?
> 
> [Arlo]
> >From those Quality interactions.

I mean where did the system of Quality interactions come from? Did it suddenly
emerge from nothing? 
 
> [Arlo previously]
> Are Quality and Consciousness separate? Or is Quality conscious?
> 
> [Platt]
> Consciousness is separate but related to Quality which, as you know, is direct
> experience.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Where did this consciousness come from?

It is the precondition of such questions as "Where did it come from?"

> [Platt]
> What about direct experience. Is that also a metaphor? 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Pre-intellectual experience, mysticism we may agree to call it, is by definition
> "pre-metaphor" (although the terms here are all metaphors to describe this
> after-the-fact). But at the moment this experience gets woven with words,
> descriptions and the like, we are dealing with metaphor.

Ah. So Consciousness is also pre-metaphor I presume.

> [Arlo previously]
> Again... I emphasize the PAGES and depth of Pirsig's insight, which extends far
> beyond this simply jib. And was selected by Pirsig, like Zen was in ZMM, for a
> reason. Second, to say this is parallel to me saying "Christian ethics allow
> burning women at the stake". 
> 
> [Platt]
> Which you take great delight in emphasizing, among other horrors. Shall we
> mention bloodbaths sponsored by atheists?
> 
> [Arlo]
> If our morality comes from "who or what is responsible for more deaths, or more
> recent deaths, or more hideous deaths, etc." then we are in trouble. Whether we
> literalize dogma or atheism, the dangers of abuse are severe. I do not turn a
> blind-eye to the horrors of atheist dictators, nor should you turn a blind-eye
> to the horrors of theistic dictators. In both cases, it is not spirituality nor
> a lack thereof that is to blame, but the literalization of that belief. 

But according to you there is no literalization. It's all metaphors. Where have
I gone wrong?

> [Platt]
> Well, yes, but I thought we were talking about social ethics, not enlightenment.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I'd say the two are flip-sides of the same coin. 

Which raises an interesting question. How can I know that my "enlightenment"
leads to what you or others consider "ethical?"

 
 


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/