[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[Platt Holden]

Hey Ham - 

[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 take it then that your answer to the question, "Did anything exist before 
human beings arrived on earth?" is "No." If that is indeed your answer, I 
suggest that may be why your Essence philosophy has been hard to
swallow by participants on this site. That's certainly the case for me.

> I maintain that you folks--apparently "you people" isn't politically 
> correct--have it all backwards.

Political correctness has buried what we use to know as free speech. Notice 
how it has come back to bite Obama when he called his grandmother a 
"typical white person."

> As is typical of existentialists, you are

That's a no-no, Ham. Be very, very careful. Big Brother is listening.

> 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.

No. Quality has the world, including us, not the other way around. 

[Platt}
> > 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.

Yes, all concepts such as one/many, first/last, right/wrong, good/bad, 
internal/external, etc. are "man's mode of experience."  But, as I've tried 
to point out, our experience is also the universe's experience. 

[Platt]
> > 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.

My cat has "proprietary awareness." So does a cockroach. Each knows its own 
value, quality, experience and world. How do I know? By behavior. Just as I 
know you are not a robot.  

[Platt]
> > 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 ;-).

This is precisely how Pirsig's evolved levels of morality demonstrate their 
value. I need not worry about killing off germs who would do damage to my 
blood cells. It's highly moral for a doctor to kill them. As for destroying 
atoms, is that possible? -- something about energy can neither be created 
or destroyed. Be that as it may, I am assured by you that so long as I 
think the atoms I destroy will be replaced by other atoms, all will be 
well. After all, that atoms exist at all is all in my head. 

Regards,
Platt