[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?]

[Ham Priday]

Arlo --

Are you the same scrappy Arlo who used to hurl insults at me?  You've either
turned over a new leaf or are on your best behavior.  If it's the latter, I
predict a change in the near future that will make me say "I should've known
better."


[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" ...?

I get your point: a hypothesis can't be validated, so its value has to be a
subjective decision.  But you don't get MINE.  However you may appraise my
ontology -- whether you see it as "better" or "worse" than somebody
else's -- it expresses my conception of reality.  I present it as my
ontogony, my view of how reality is constructed.  Do we at least agree that
reality itself is not a metaphor, analogy, parable, or "figure of speech'?

I presume you do, so I'll skip the "Book of Ham" and get to the meat of our
discussion.

 [Ham]:
> I don't know where the notion "complexity begets a
> designer" comes from, but it's an illogical paradigm.

[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".

Excellent!  That saves me a lot of words -- especially if you really believe
it.

[Ham]:
> The Essence that I posit is uncreated and absolute
> in its "Oneness"; therefore, complexity... is anathema.
> The question you raise, however, is epistemologically
> significant.
>
> I maintain that what you call "pre-intellectual experience"
> 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, prompting Arlo's comment below]:
> 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..."?

No.  Essence is indivisible, which is why we can't directly experience it.
Instead we sense its Value, relationally, and objectivize it as the
experience of a differentiated world.

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

I'm positing an undifferentiated One that creates the appearance of
otherness by negating itself.  (Let's save negation for another discussion.)
We now have difference; specifically, a dichotomy between Awareness and
Otherness (intellectualized as Being). These contingencies are divided by
nothingness but attracted by essential Value, establishing what might be
viewed as a "reciprocal relationship".  (Another metaphor for you -- a
cosmic principle for me.)  The point to remember [it gave Case a headache
because he insisted that awareness is a form of being] is that Being-Aware
is a true dichotomy: there is no being without awareness, and no awareness
without being.

[Arlo, referring to Ham's definition above]:
> 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."  Universality extends only to shared experience.

Why complicate subjectivity by giving it genetic properties?  (That's trying
to wire the brain for thought processes, which I haven't even gotten to.)
Your definition of "universal properties" is the same as mine -- shared
experience.

[Arlo]:
> 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.

Whatever.

[Arlo]:
> 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.

I admit that this remains an unresolved problem for me, and I'm surprised
that the Pirsigians have ignored it.  I chalk it up as a cosmic principle.
It's "what happens" when an infinitesimal subject meets the absolute source
through its sense of value.

[Arlo]:
> "The physical universe we all experience" emerges
> 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 when carbon-collectives become sufficiently
> complex as to allow this to happen.

That's all very informative, but you're talking physics and chemistry -- 
space/time processes, not metaphysics.  You're looking at the physical world
as the scientist does, and your conclusions will be as objectivist as his
are.  That's why Science will never come up with a workable ontology.

 [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.

 [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.

Since all you did was substitute Quality for Value, it shouldn't affect what
I've said so far.  However, I feel duty-bound to warn you in advance that
the Value I refer to is not innate in, or a property of, what we call the
physical world.  It is sensed only by the conscious individual.  (I fear
that may contradict your "universality clause" for Quality.)

[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.

I did preface my examples with "such as," Arlo.  Are we playing
Multiculturalism now?

 [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.

Whatever.

[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. ...

Yes, and we may suffer a worse fate if we continue to sit on our fat duffs
and pretend not to notice the barbarians out there who are determined to
destroy Western culture.  Edmund Burke once said, "All that is required for
evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing."  I like to think
intellectually enlightened people who value their freedom are capable of
averting such a disaster.  To date, all they seem able to do is chastise the
Bush administration.  But we all get what we deserve, don't we?

Thanks for allowing a stimulating and civil discussion, Arlo.

-- Ham