[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?]

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Ham]
If you want to call this ontology "supernatural", it's fine by me, so long as
you accept it as my "literal" view and not a metaphor.

[Arlo]
It has to be a metaphor, Ham. That's my point. Perhaps you'd like "analogy". And
please don't think I use "metaphor" in any derogatory way. Let me say it this
way. Would you say your ontology is "better" while others are "worse", in
explaining the "cosmos et al"? Or would you say your ontology is "True" and
others are "false"? The former evidences metaphor-accepted, the later evidences
metaphor-denied. 

Let me take a tangent. Would you say to a Spaniard, Asian, Amerindian and Inuit,
all sitting at your table, that their ways of understanding the world are
"wrong" and yours is "right", or would you say yours may be "better"? You see,
here's the problem I have, if your way, let's call it "The Book of Ham" is
"Truth", then why has no one up until now seen it? Has everyone else just been
blind? Have people been too stupid? "Betterness", on the otherhand, is tied to
a host of cultural factors.

[Ham]
I don't know where the notion "complexity begets a designer" comes from, but
it's an illogical paradigm.  In fact, the reverse is true: the designer begets
complexity (i.e., difference).

[Arlo]
I don't think I was as clear as I could have been. I should have said
"witnessing complexity forces us to recognize the need for a designer". 

[Ham]
The Essence that I posit is uncreated and absolute in its "Oneness"; therefore,
complexity (as in the finite, relational world) is anathema to this concept. 
The question you raise, however, is epistemologically most significant.

I maintain that what you call "pre-intellectual experience" (pre-metaphoric?) is
not experience at all, but "value-sensibility".

[Arlo]
Okay.

[Ham]
I reserve the term "experience" for the cognizance of discrete objects which is
an intellectual process.  This is where the differentiation takes place.

[Arlo]
Fair enough.

[Ham]
What you're really asking is: Where does the template for universal complexity
come from?  I think you'll like my answer, because it's the single place in my
thesis where I can apply the Pirsigian term "pattern".

[Arlo]
I don't like or dislike things because of their use of Pirsigian terminology. 

[Ham]
In simple terms, the "cosmic pattern" is the resultant of essential Value
differentiated by the sense organs in conjunction with the intellect to
"objectify" physical reality.  Don't ask me to account for the specific design,
but I suspect that it represents the relation of the single-point perspective
(proprietary awareness) to the absolute source.  The world that we experience
is subjective (proprietary) with respect to its perceived values, but universal
(objective) with respect to its defined properties in time and space.

[Arlo]
When you say "essential Value differentiated by..." do you mean "Essence
differentiated by..."?

You are proposing an undifferentiated One that becomes differentiated by sense
organs working with intellect. Question, where does Intellect come from? 

For point of reference, I'd change your last sentence to... "The world that we
experience is subjective (proprietary) with respect to our
microgenetic/proprietary experience, but universal (objective) with respect to
our shared/collective mythos."  Universiality extends only to shared
experience. As similar beings, many of our "sensory experiences" are similar,
and so we construct the idea of an "objective reality" based on that. And
that's fine. 

I'm not really arguing with you, Ham. Just highlighting one difference in our
thinking.

But it is a good question. Where does the template for universal complexity come
from? I don't think there is one. I don't think the "pattern" or "template" for
people existed before there were people. 

[Ham]
I can't say that I comprehend this theory -- particularly the part about
collectives forming new "individuals" -- but I can respect it as you literal
belief.

[Arlo]
Its a metaphor. :-)

[Ham]
The criticism I raised was the use of this hypothesis to answer Platt's question
concerning the emergence of the universe -- not the intellectual "concept" of a
universe, but the physical universe that we all experience.  I'm not sure how
the term "emergence" differs from  evolution, but this explanation certainly
doesn't address evolution in the Darwinian context (which I assume Platt had in
mind).

[Arlo]
"The physical universe we all experience" emerges from as individual patterns
form self-organizing collectives, from the tiniest of inorganic patterns
increasing in complexity up and up and up. Evolution accounts for increases in
complexity. Emergence happens when a level of complexity is so great, entirely
new "things" form out of this lower level behavior. Carbon, for example, does
not evolve into DNA. DNA is possible whe carbon-collectives become sufficiently
complex as to allow this to happen.

[Ham]
The pre-intellectual "experience" is that of Value, which is why I prefer to
call it sensibility.  Once this value has been objectivized by the intellect,
it becomes experience.  Isn't that a clearer epistemology?  (Or, do you not
agree with it?)

[Arlo]
Actually, this is the most "Pirsigian" thing you've said (I think). I'd just say
"The pre-intellectual "experience" is that of Quality. Once this Quality has
been objectivized by the intellect, it becomes experience." If that doesn't
change your intent, then I think we agree.

[Ham]
I believe the assertions of philosophy should be substantive, logically
consistent, and meaningful, whether they involve physical reality or abstract
concepts.  Propositions that apply to existence should be clearly distinguished
from those that involve abstractions such as Quality, Value, God, or Essence. 

[Arlo]
You "believe" this because in our culture, these "traits" prove to be Quality
sign-posts for constructing useful metaphors. An Inuit would laugh you out of
his igloo.

[Ham]
Since explaining the transition from one to the other (e.g., creation,
transcendence) usually requires the philosopher to coin new terminology or
redefine commonly understood words, a glossary of specialized terms should be
mandatory.

[Arlo]
Create a metaphor, and then attempt to explain it. Makes sense. Just like in
Art. Forge a new style, and then textbooks will tell everyone what you meant.

[Ham]
In my opinion, there is too much symbolism and not enough reality in our
intellectual life today; and that goes for our fiscal, moral, cultural, and
national responsibilities, as well as our philosophical tenets.

[Arlo]
I'd argue there is too much abstraction and not enough pragmatic implementation.
Or as David M. recently reminded me, we have to "walk the walk and not just
talk the talk". I disagree, of course, that all the things you mention are
going to hell in a handbasket. Change is the only permanent thing. No empire
lasts forever. No border. No nothing. Stagnation creeps in and things decay.
The Chinese Dynasties all came to an end. The Romans, too, lamented the end of
their empire. And out of the ashes here we are. But I don't think we are near
an end, just a transition. And that can be scary if you like the "old ways".
And exciting if you don't.