[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Arlo]
> The point I was trying to make is that evolution, in the large macro-sense you
> seem to consider, is impossible to "observe". An Australopithecines would never
> to be able to "observe" the macro-level evolution that would transform him/her
> into us. From any point in time, it "appears" that (macro-)evolution has
> stopped.

Since evolution is "impossible to observe" it does seem to be outside science
which, if I'm not mistaken, requires observation to establish the validity
of it's theories. Former President Conant of Harvard, a chemist, defined 
science as, "An interconnected series of concepts and conceptual schemes that
have developed as a result of EXPERIMENTATION and OBSERVATION  and are fruitful
of further EXPERIMENTATIONS and OBSERVATIONS. (Emphasis added.) As far as
I know, no experiments have been performed that demonstrate macro-evolution (if
you consider that a significant distinction), nor has it, as you readily admit,
been observed happening. Is Conant's description of science wrong? Or do we make an 
exception for evolution when we bill it as a 'scientific" theory?  

> I think the changes you see in "intellect" is comparable to the mutations Ron,
> Ian and Horse are describing. The micro-level evolutions are the ground-stuff
> of the large macro-level evolutions that transcend any observable perspective
> other than retrospective. That is, I can't observe how the human is evolving on
> a level of change as between Australopithecines and "me", only retrospectively
> can I see the larger pattern of evolutionary change brought about by small,
> seemingly "insignificant" micro-evolutionary movement.
> 
> Recall that Pirsig had said, "My own opinion is that the intellect of modern man
> isn’t that superior. IQs aren’t that much different. Those Indians and
> medieval men were just as intelligent as we are, but the context in which they
> thought was completely different." This would seem to indicate that the
> "intellectual level" has not "evolved" in our observable time to the same depth
> as the evolutionary difference between Australopithecines and "us". It
> undergoes micro-adaption and evolution, sure, but even on the intellectual
> level we don't "observe" macro-level evolutionary changes. 

Well, with all due respect to you and Mr. Pirsig, I consider his MOQ to be
a macro-level evolutionary change in the intellectual level, so much so
in fact that the intellectual level dominated by SOM is barely recognizable
from the MOQ perspective.
 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/