[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[John Carl]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> If there is a "discrepancy" in our reality paradigm, it isn't a matter of
> whether our thinking is based on biology or physics, since it's obvious (as
> Lanza et al demonstrate) that empirical evidence does not provide the
> answers.  Yet it appears that the Biocentrists are unwilling to let go of
> the Science that has failed them and to acknowledge Metaphysics as a more
> likely source for Truth.


I don't quite get that... you differentiate between science and metaphysics
in a way I've never encountered before.  All Science has metaphysical
assumptions at its base, whether explicit or implicit.



> Thanks for the link to the abridged Lanza/Berman thesis.  I've reviewed the
> material and was disappointed to find it a chronology of scientific thinking
> rather than an original ontology.  Biocentrism at this juncture is obviously
> an idea in search of a proper metaphysical foundation.



I can see your point there.  I don't see it as replacing the MoQ or in your
case, the MoE, but as a supportive framework for both and also a reasonable
restatement of the challenges that a value-free metaphysics underlying the
modern scientific worldview has been grappling with for many years.

Or put it another way, Biocentrism is an idea in search of a metaphysics,
Hey!  I just happen to have a metaphysics lying around in need of some
empirical underpinnings.  Maybe put them together and see if they "fit".



> Inasmuch as Biology is the Science of Life, one can see why the
> biophysicist would assume that the 'magic elixer' lies in a marriage of
> biology and physics.  But the authors raise more questions than they answer.
>  While it is one thing to say that the universe was designed to support
> life, it's quite another to conclude that life created the universe.  This
> essay seems to be asserting both.  It reminds me of Donald Hoffman's theory
> that Consciousness is the ultimate reality.
>

And reminds me of Spinoza's conceptualization of the whole as God.


>
> No intelligent person can deny that the universe is "intelligently"
> designed.  The question that needs to be answered is: Does this design
> manifest the intelligence of the observer, the universe itself, or a
> transcendent Creator?
>

Well the intelligence of the observer stems from the same source as the
intelligent design in the creation, and the intelligent design of the
creation obviates any logical necessity for a transcendant Creator, so I'd
say the universe itself is the only answer that is complete and makes sense
to us and reveals itself to us in an orderly way.

"The heavens reveal the glory of God" is basically saying that the heavens
are a revelation of God, and to us, the revelation of God IS the only God
we'll ever know.


"Nature" is only man's name for Existence and its physical, biological, and
> psychical properties.  But is the "nature" of man the "nature" of the
> universe?  Lanza, the biologist, is persuaded that it is.  Carl, the logical
> analyst, believes that Nature makes the most sense as our ultimate source of
> value.  Pirsig, the philosopher, believes that Value is the primary
> empirical reality.  Priday, the essentialist, believes that Nature
> represents our valuistic sense of an ultimate source.
>
> Which of us has it right?


Here's a snippet of Pirsig's commentary on Coppleston's reading of Idealism
from http://www.robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm (Pirsig in Red)


 Is man merely a child of Nature?

Yes. Quality is nature.

Or is there in him a spiritual principle which makes knowledge possible,
whether it be knowledge of Nature or moral knowledge?

The MOQ says there is no spiritual principle in man that makes knowledge
possible.  Nature does the whole job

So Pirsig and Carl agree upon Nature being the ultimate source of Value,
since Pirsig asserts that Quality IS Nature.  I disagree with Pirsig's
detestation of "spirit" and about there being "no spiritual principle in man
which makes knowledge possible".   DQ is such a "Spirit", which is the
manifestation of Nature's "musical resonances" apprehensible to man.  And
perhaps Priday's Essence could synthesize this comfortably into a
metaphysical foundation, comfortable for all.


John