[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Platt --


> Hard for me to believe that the universe didn't exist before
> we humans arrived on the scene . . . if that's what you mean.

The universe "comes through" man, is intelligently conceptualized by man, 
and is valued by man as his being in the world.  There is no metaphysical 
distinction between "internal" and "external" reality.  Man the creature is 
a being, just as is the table you sit at or the house you see next door. 
The only thing that separates these objects is your conscious experience 
which, with the help of your intellect, constructs these differentiated 
images from your sense of value.  Because experienced things have value for 
us, we perceive them as representative values.  Didn't Pirsig somewhere say 
experience creates the world?  I do know he said that what we don't value 
doesn't exist.  This is either a euphemism or a truth.  If it's true, what 
exists is what we intellectualize from value as being,  The universe exists 
by the same principle.

I maintain that you folks--apparently "you people" isn't politically 
correct--have it all backwards.  As is typical of existentialists, you are 
persuaded that "existence precedes essence," that things (matter, being) 
give rise to experience (awareness), whereas the opposite is true.  How else 
can you explain that Reality is derived from Quality?   If Quality (i.e., 
Value) is our pre-intellectual sensibility, as Pirsig says, than what we 
intellectualize as a physical world is constructed of Value, not the other 
way around.

> I for one am no fan of the "oops" theory of creation. I lean toward
> the "Ethical Requirement" theory expounded by the Canadian
> philosopher John Leslie as described in "The Mind of God" by Paul
> Davies. Leslie's theory seems to complement Pirsig's MOQ wherein
> the thrust towards "betterness" solves many mysteries how and why
> there are "firsts" followed by others.

I am not acquainted with Leslie, but "firsts" and "lasts", as I've said from 
the beginning, are man's mode of experience.  Ethical, to me, is just 
another variant of morality--a judgment of man.  Time and space are part of 
the cosmic pattern that is actualized when awareness is separated from 
beingness.  The phrase "Mind of God" suggests the same dualism implied by 
"mind of man".  The difference is that while man can be "mindless", we can 
not assume that God is subject to this anthropic condition.

> My cat whose descendants were probably around long before mine
> show every evidence of judging things as "valuable," from the food in
> his dish to the blanket in his bed. In fact I maintain (along with Pirsig)
> that "value" is recognized and acting upon accordingly by every entity
> known, including cats, bugs, cells, and atoms.

Ah yes, that remarkable feline.  Again, your "evidence" is behavior.  You 
know, Platt, the Japanese are designing robots that not only can clean the 
home but converse and even make love to the owner.  The manufacturers 
seriously believe they can market these humanoids to "lonely" or unsociable 
people, and they're probably right.  I'm reminded of this AI creation every 
time I read these posts about man being a byproduct of competing 
inorganic/organic/social/intellectual levels.  To accept this ideology is to 
denigrate proprietary awareness, without which agent there would be no 
value, quality, experience, or world.

> I find "value-sensibility" the essence not just of man,
> but of the universe including man.

Yes, I know.  And I can't seem to dissuade you from this 'Mother Earth' 
notion.  Just be careful to watch where you step.  You'll surely be 
destroying innocent atoms, if not also a few microbes who value your blood 
cells quite highly ;-).

Cheers,
Ham