[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ham]
I haven't tangled with Arlo for a long time.

[Arlo]
Cue tango music.

[Ham]
In any case, Consciousness and Quality are both part of man's 
experience, although I see no rational justification for considering 
them "natural processes."

[Arlo]
You propose that, although we experience them, they are supernatural in origin?

[Ham]
But, rather than challenge Platt's assertion on logical grounds, Arlo 
strikes out at what he believes is the crux of Platt's position -- theism.

[Arlo]
The "crux" of the issue was the claim that "complexity begets a 
designer", to which I responded that certainly then such a 
sufficiently complex designer would also require a designer? Platt 
then claimed the designer was pure simplicity and thus required no 
designer. I'm not sure how such a simple designer can contain all the 
preplanned forms for the Universe, but there it is.

[Ham]
Are we to understand that Pirsig founded his MoQ on a metaphor 
made by man? ...

[Arlo]
Any attempt to symbolically represent or capture "reality" is a 
metaphor that "reality". Our metaphors get more and more complex as 
we consider "philosophy", and we pragmatically make use of "cemented 
metaphor" (literalizing) when it comes to most practical, everyday 
activity. As such, both "Quality" and "God" are metaphors for 
understanding "the cosmos" or "reality" or "this". Taoism, Buddhism, 
Christianity, Nihilism, Pragmatism, Idealism... all metaphorical 
creations of man.

[Arlo had replied to Platt]
The Universe, and mind, emerged from Quality interactions among 
individuals in increasingly complex collectives.

[Ham objects]
Excuse me?  The universe emerged from interactions of 
INDIVIDUALS?  The statement is totally nonsensical.

[Arlo]
What we perceive to be the Universe emerges from the interaction of 
individual patterns of value, beginning at the inorganic level, and 
increasing in complexity as self-organizing collectives form. These 
collectives form new "individuals" (at higher levels of complexity) 
whose interactions then constitute new self-organizing collectives in 
a spiral up to whereever we make our level of focus.

You object to what you claim is avoidance of Platt's question, but 
his statement is really no different than "Does LILA have Quality?" 
or "Does a dog have a Buddha nature?"

A: The Universe, and mind, emerged from Quality interactions among 
individuals in increasingly complex collectives.
P: Where did such a system come from?
A: From those Quality interactions.

The answer and the question contain each other.

[Ham's objection continues]
So, "pre-intellectual" experience for Arlo is "pre-metaphoric", while 
"after-the-fact" experience is metaphoric.  What about DIRECT 
experience? Somehow Arlo has managed to evade Platt's question.  Or, 
could it be, he doesn't acknowledge direct experience?

[Arlo]
I'm sorry, I consider "direct experience" to be "pre-intellectual" 
(and thus "pre-metaphoric").

[Platt was unhappy with the metaphor]
So Quality is just a figure of speech?  Interesting.  I thought it 
pointed to something a bit more substantial.

[Ham is as well]
I thought so, too, Platt.

[Arlo]
Perhaps you can tell me a way to understand philosophy that is not 
through the use of metaphorical symbols? Certainly "mystic 
experience" can do us Good, but once we start calling it "something", 
it is a metaphor. Our words can never capture it "literally". To 
think otherwise is a fool's quest.

[Ham]
... if the fundamental axioms are assumed to be metaphors, we're not 
discussing philosophy but analyzing linguistics (or romantic prose).

[Arlo]
Do not let this moment of Enlightenment pass, Ham! Embrace it!