[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?]

[Ham Priday]

Hi Arlo --

(Sorry for the delay, but this message never got posted on my Outlook
Express list.  I was about to remail it when I spotted your reply.)

[Arlo]:
> You say this... but I got two dismissive "whatevers",
> and some allusion to "multiculturalism" that I can only
> assume was meant as an insult. I'll try to sort out points
> of difference between us Ham, but let's avoid the
> condescending innuendo, eh? I'll do my best in that
> regard as well.

For the record, "Multiculturalism" was a reference to the new social policy
of egalitarianism which treats all cultures alike, regardless of their
morality system, intellectual development, concept of justice, or
socio-political agenda.  Since I assume we share a common culture, albeit
with some political differences, I don't see how this could be construed as
an insult.  "Whatever" is simply my way of diverting possible arguments over
off-hand comments that I don't fully understand but that have no direct
bearing on the particular statement preceding it.  (Evidently you were not
amused, and I'll refrain from such "dismissive" phrases, or just insert
[snip] in their place.)

[Ham]:
> [My ontology] expresses my conception of reality. ...
> I present it as ... my view of how reality is constructed.

[Arlo]:
> Of course it does, Ham. But just as you say it here...
> it is a "your conception of reality". It is a metaphor
> that you find great value in to explain "this".

[Ham]:
> Do we at least agree that reality itself is not a metaphor,
> analogy, parable, or "figure of speech'?

[Arlo]:
> Are you asking, "is there an objective world upon which
> our subjective metaphor rests"?

No.  I'm talking about your conception of fundamental Reality -- whatever it
may be, whatever is "real" to you.

[Arlo]:
> In the sense you must mean this (I gather), I'd have to say
> "no". Objects and subjects are mutually emergent from the
> Quality event. We can talk about an "objective world", and
> define it by symbols based on shared experience, and I'd
> agree that an S/O division allows for much pragmatic activity
> (although not always Good). But do not confuse this either
> with Idealism. "Reality" is not "in the mind", nor do humans
> "make reality". To rephrase this slightly, we can talk about
> "reality", but as long as we are clear that I am not using it
> to refer to shared experiences arising from Quality,
> and not some absolute, empirical "thing", we should be fine.

This is not a trick question, Arlo.  What is ultimately real for you?  Is it
a symbol?  A process?  An event?  Experience?  Awareness?  Mythos? Goodness?
Let's be clear about this: If you don't acknowledge a reality of some kind,
there's no basis from which to proceed with an ontological discussion.

[Arlo previously]:
> 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]:
> Excellent!  That saves me a lot of words -- 
> especially if you really believe it.

[Arlo, admitting to deception]:
> Uh oh. You see, I said it because that's what Platt
> seemed to be saying, and what I was rejecting.
> Quick clarification, to avoid restating too much from
> that discussion, it is not "designer" itself that I find
> troubling, it is the implicating of preplanned or
> preordered forms and templates, which to me a
> "designer" implies. ...

Essentialism doesn't represent Platt's philosophy.  So why do you want to
lead me down this path?  (Here's where my "whatever" would have been
appropriate.)

[Ham]:
> Essence is indivisible ... we sense its Value, relationally,
> and objectivize it as the experience of a differentiated world.

[Arlo]:
> This is a part of your thesis I do understand.

[Ham]:
> I'm positing an undifferentiated One that creates
> the appearance of otherness by negating itself.

[Arlo]
> And that's the part of your thesis (did you once say "negation
> negates itself"?) I don't understand.

No, I said Essence negates nothingness.  But, again, I'd prefer to avoid
hashing out the negation concept at this time.  (It's a troublesome area for
most people and not critical at this juncture.)

[Ham]:
> The point to remember is that Being-Aware is a true
> dichotomy: there is no being without awareness, and
> no awareness without being.

[Arlo]:
> We use words differently. If there is not one without
> the other, then this is not a dichotomy in the sense I
> use the word. Dichotomies represent separable pairs.

According to my Webster's Collegiate, a dichotomy is "a division into two
mutually exclusive groups."  Runes' Philosophy Dictionary defines it as
"literally, a division into two parts.  In a specific example, the view that
man consists of soul and body."  I am very explicit about this, and make a
clear distinction between a dichotomy and a dyad or duality such as "Good
vs. Evil".

[Arlo]:
> Are Being and Awareness mutually contained?
> Or are they separable?

They are mutually exclusive, but tangential (attached).

 [Ham on templates for creation]:
> I admit that this remains an unresolved problem for me,
> and I'm surprised that the Pirsigians have ignored it.
> I chalk it up to a cosmic principle. It's "what happens"
> when an infinitesimal subject meets the absolute source.

[Arlo]:
> I don't know how many have "ignored it". Like I said,
> I am quite clear in denying pre-existing templates. It comes
> back in some way to my "dinosaurs existed to give us oil"
> comment. ...If WE (humans) were designed (as templates)
> since the beginning, then it makes sense to assume we were
> meant to be here all along. So, why spend 150 million years
> to populate the earth with large reptiles? Was that a mistake?
> Did it have a purpose? If all along WE were the "heirs
> apparent" to the cosmos, then the dinosaurs must have
> existed either as "filler" or to "give us oil". ...These were
> questions I asked in the "Respect for the Design" thread.

Okay, I guess the design aspect has been discussed.  One problem I have with
evolutionary "progress" is that it's time-based.  For me, space/time is the
mode of human experience, the "serialized" perspective of existence whose
dimensions are intellectualized constructs.  So, 'ex post facto' is what
counts, not the means of getting us here.

[Ham]:
> 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.

[Arlo]:
> I prefer to think I am looking at the world as an artist
> (or art admirer) does. Value and meaning derive from
> this experience, situated and cultural, not from an
> external Absolute.

In a sense we all do; and I tend to be more artistic than scientific,
despite my effort to conceal it.  As a technical point, my Absolute is not
"external" but immanent, which is another important distinction between the
God of religion and the philosophy of Essence.

[Arlo]:
> I'm not sure I'd say Quality (or Value) is "a property
> of the physical world".

But you and most of the Pirsigians have described it as a "universal
principle", which is essentially the same thing.  Do you accept my view that
Value (Quality) is subjective?  (Give it some thought before you answer.)

I'll skip the "politics", although my comment was triggered by your
assertion that "Change is the only permanent thing," suggesting that any
change is better than "stagnation".  It's what the liberals call "moving
forward."  I'm reminded of a wise man who once said: "Don't just do
something; stand there."

Cheers,
Ham