[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Arlo]
Going to consolidate our two threads into this reply.

[Platt]
I don't see much about an ethical system in the above, and no mention 
of an 8-fold path. I have read ZMM. That's why I asked. I thought I 
missed something. Apparently not.

[Arlo]
While Pirsig does not mention the term "Eight Fold Path", it 
obviously underlies his thinking, as made clear several times in his 
words. In any event, Pirsig pairs an understanding of Quality tightly 
with the Buddha, the Tao and in LILA with Native American culture. As 
far as I know, he has made no ties with "Judeo-Christian ethics". 
Again I propose a reason for this might be that these "belief 
systems" are not mired in two-thousand years of S/O-dominant culture, 
and as such represent Quality in a clear way.

[Platt]
Ah, the issue of Truth. We certainly act as if there is Truth, such 
as the assertion that "Any symbolic representation will ultimately be 
incomplete." Is that statement True, partially True, sometimes True, 
or what? Looks like we might be getting involved in logical absurdities.

[Arlo]
You always act like this is some shockingly new revelation. Perhaps 
you should spend more time contemplating Zen, as did Pirsig.

[Platt]
Well, since it's all metaphors we can only guess about Pirsig's 
Truth. In one instance he considers it good, in another he considers 
it impractical in the modern world.

[Arlo]
You seem to looking for an externally imposed "objective" Truth.

[Platt]
That individual rights come from God, not other men.

[Arlo]
See, that's scary to me. Because "God" tends to be historically 
preferential. I mean, the Great Founders had no problem with slavery. 
Their "God", apparently, only granted these rights to a particular 
group of people. It was not until much later, using reason and 
secular humanistic foundations, that we've learned to apply this 
"right" to all people, regardless of faith, not because some 
extracorporeal entity "said so", but because it we know from reason 
that it is "better". The "social contract" is always an agreement 
among people, "God" was only used as an authority (and a poor one, 
oftentimes) and enforcer.

[Platt]
Yes. So reverting to ancient cultures such as those of the East and 
Indians may not be all some think it's cracked up to be.

[Arlo]
As always, we should take the Good and scrap the bad. Pirsig 
highlights much, much Good we should learn and adopt from these 
non-S/O cultures. Again, there is a reason why he ends LILA with a 
recognition that Indians got it right all along. Theirs was not an 
S/O culture. And so in tossing off our own S/O chains, we should look 
to them, and the Zen Buddhists, and other non-S/O cultures for 
sign-posts and an understanding of what non-S/O Quality is (which is 
just what Pirsig did).

[Arlo had asked]
And let me ask you a side question. If all this is a preplanned 
design, what does it mean when we (humans) drive a species (flower, 
whale, bird, whatever) into extinction? Is that, too, preplanned? Are 
we destroying God's design when we do so? Or do the other parts of 
the design exist only to service us?

I ask this, because it would seem to me, that a belief in a 
preplanned designed would engender more respect for the design that 
it appears to. Religious people should be among the most vocal in 
stewardship and protection of God's design. Why is it always the 
other way around (seemingly)?

Actually, what's quite telling here, is that Zen Buddhism and Native 
American spirituality, the same ethos that Pirsig uses to develop 
Quality, are also the most protective and respectful of "the design". 
While ethos steeped heavily in S/O dominance tend to be the most 
destructive of "the design". If Pirsig likens Quality to the Buddha, 
the Tao, and finds strong resonance in Native American spirituality 
and life, and these are all ethical systems that value respect for 
"being part of the world", shouldn't this be something we consider as 
quite important?

[Platt]
IMO the environmental movement is vastly overblown with the motive of 
gaining control of people's lives, the ancient game of grabbing for 
power, always in the name of the "public good."

[Arlo]
This is not what I asked. I asked, why do those who argue for 
"design" seem the least concerned with protecting and respecting that 
"design"? If it IS all "design", as you yourself claim to believe it 
to be, then what is the morality of not only passively observing 
parts of that design destroyed, but also actively encouraging it? 
This would seem to me to evidence a belief that while it is a 
"design", we are the only part of it that really matter, the rest 
exists to service us. Is that wrong?

Furthermore, if the primary ethos Pirsig uses to descibe Quality, the 
Zen Buddhist, the Taoist and the Native American, are all much more 
historically respectful of "being part of the world", and are non-S/O 
dominant, isn't this "mystic" appreciation for "design", of "being 
part of the world", of not destroying the patterns around us, 
something to be considered as pretty important?

[Platt previously]
Where did such a system come from?

[Arlo had replied]
 From those Quality interactions.

[Platt]
I mean where did the system of Quality interactions come from? Did it 
suddenly emerge from nothing?

[Arlo]
It emerged from Quality interactions.

[Arlo had asked]
Where did this consciousness come from?

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

[Arlo]
Where did this precondition come from? Did the "design" of humans 
reside in this "precondition" 100 trillion years ago?

[Platt]
Ah. So Consciousness is also pre-metaphor I presume.

[Arlo]
"Consciousness" is an emergent property of social activity. Our 
intellectualization of our "locus" as "consciousness" is metaphorical.

"Looking back on what we have discussed, you might think to yourself, 
"These speculations about brain and mind are all well and good, but 
what about the feelings involved in consciousness? These symbols may 
trigger each other all they want, but unless someone perceives the 
whole thing, there's no consciousness."

This makes sense to our intuition on some level, but it does not make 
much sense logically. For we would then be compelled to look for an 
explanation of the mechanism which does the perceiving of all the 
active symbols, if it is not covered by what we have described so 
far. Of course, a "soulist" would not have to look any further-he 
would merely assert that the perceiver of all this neural action is 
the soul, which cannot be described in physical terms, and that is 
that. However, we shall try to give a "nonnsoulist" explanation of 
where consciousness arises.

Our alternative to the soulist explanation-and a disconcerting one it 
is, too-is to stop at the symbol level and say, "This is it-this is 
what consciousness is. Consciousness is that property of a system 
that arises whenever there exist symbols in the system which obey 
triggering patterns somewhat like the ones described in the past 
several sections." Put so starkly, this may seem inadequate. How does 
it account for the sense of "I", the sense of self?" (From GEB, Hofstadter)

[Arlo previously]
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.

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

[Arlo]
No, there is no literalization. The danger, in both cases (theistic 
and atheistic) is in forgetting that. Horrors then pour in. No stopping that.

For point of discussion, I think "literalization" has pragmatic value 
(and this is why it happens at all). We learn to accept solidified 
metaphor (literalization) in daily activity because it allows us to 
move and act in ways that would otherwise be cumbersome. And so long 
as it is remembered that one is doing this for pragmatic reasons, one 
can generally do this without much problem. But the moment one 
forgets this, the moment one believes that his/her metaphor is 
"literally true", we descend into dogma (whether theistic or 
atheistic) and it is never long thereafter that power and evil enter 
the picture. Whether its Stalin executing theists, or the Pope 
burning people at the stake, its always been the same.

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

[Arlo]
Are you suggesting there is enlightened behavior that is unethical?