[MD] Science Wars

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Andre]
... this is just a thought (streching things a bit) what Pirsig did 
do with this example is implanting some sort of purpose within the 
MoQ's evolutionary framework.a purpose which, given the context , 
makes 'sense' of the existence and profession of the chemistry 
professor, and inviting us (if you like) to find our own purpose/ 
place within this evolutionary MoQ framework.

[Arlo]
To your first point, I'd say that "purpose" is purely 
hindsight-written. We say the "purpose" of subatomic pattern is to 
(minimally) make more complicated inorganic patterns, but this is 
only looking back and seeing what they "did" and then ascribing that 
as having been "their purpose".

In other words, stating the "purpose" of quantum particles to create 
chemistry professors is simply stating "well, if that's what they 
DID, it must have been their PURPOSE". Seen gazing backwards in time, 
"purpose" is just a comfy illusion we use to maintain the idea that 
we were "destined" or "pre-ordained" to be here.

Dan's recent heartfelt post has me thinking about my own daughter, 
and her wholly unintentional existence. Sixteen years later, its hard 
to imagine a life, or in fact a day, without her, indeed, the thought 
of such a life seems empty and sad. When I think back to the one 
night, the very particular situations that gave rise to her creation, 
it seems now like it must have been pre-ordained, as I can't imagine 
my life any other way. But had I opted to travel, as I had intended, 
that night, she would quite simply never have existed, and in that 
timeline, I wouldn't miss her because she never would've been. Maybe 
I'd have a son. Or two. Or no children. The point is that this is the 
same with "purpose". We look back at the evolution of quantum 
particles to physics professors and can't imagine it having been any 
different, because we wouldn't exist. But it *could* have been.

Yes, I agree, "purpose" is "our own", although it (like all 
intellectual patterns) is socially constructed and meaningful only 
within a social context. It is the story we tell ourselves to make 
sense of what we see looking backwards in time.

[Andre]
Purpose within the context of finding your own dharma.

[Arlo]
"Purpose" is guiding abstraction that, as intellectual beings awash 
in social dialogue, gives us the ability to abscond from time; to 
posit a past and deliberate a future. Symbolic representations like 
this are very powerful social devices, and have enabled humans (and 
wielders of said abstractions) to escape from the Neverending Now. It 
is a two-headed beast that serves to draw control of the future out 
of validation of the past. Dharma requires to be neither in the past 
nor the future, but in the present moment, responding to Quality.

I'd say the paradox is that it is these patterns that have made us 
lose the connection to Dharma in the first place (although I hope 
Locke finds Dharma soon). This is why the Eastern way is to "kill 
these patterns", and one of those patterns that must be killed is "purpose".

[Andre]
Starting in your heart and head and then your hands, and then work 
outward from there. (ZMM,p291).

[Arlo]
This isn't directed at you, of course, but I want to say that the 
fallacy is that you need "purpose" to "be". You don't. What you 
demonstrate here does not require purpose, it requires only 
responding to Quality in the now.