[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Joseph Maurer]

On 8/10/09 11:49 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

[Ham]
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?

[Ham] 
"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?
 
Thanks again, John
Ham
 

 

Hi Ham and all,

[Joe]
You cannot prioritize essence.  The only basis for a moral decision is ³I
want to.²  Any order to my decision making is based on my perception of the
Œwant¹ of a transcendent creator, and the things I feel that (HE. SHE,IT)
requires of me.   ³I² am a law unto myself!  ³I² am the moral basis for my
decisions.

[Joe]
Imho the basis for morality is my understanding and acceptance of a
hierarchy of levels in existence.  The history of the planet shows that
everything does not appear at once.  There is a lapse between the first rock
and the first bacteria in the fossil record.  Evolution is a precise
description of those existential realities.  The basis for morality is my
judgment about the necessary order of those existential realities for
continuing existence.

Joe 

> Hi John --
> 
> 
> 
>> I'm glad you have a prior interest in Lanza, as I find this new
>> development in philosophy very relevant to the MoQ and
>> the Perennial...
>> 
>> Well one way to look at it, in a general upper room sort of view,
>> is that since "brain" and "nervous system" are themselves ordered
>> parts of the cosmos they observe, then the discrepancy isn't as
>> big as we "thought".
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.  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.
> 
> I've made my own abridgement of what I consider the most pertinent
> statements ...
> 
> "A more accurate understanding of the world requires that we consider it
> biologically centered.  It's a simple but amazing concept that Biocentrism
> attempts to clarify: Life creates the universe, instead of the other way
> around.  Understanding this more fully yields answers to several long-held
> puzzles.  This new model  -  combining physics and biology instead of
> keeping them separate, and putting observers firmly into the equation  -  is
> called biocentrism.
> 
> "Undeniably it is the biological creature that makes the observations and
> creates the theories.
> The world appears to be designed for life, not just at the microscope scale
> of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself.  Scientists have
> discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that make it appear
> as if everything it contains  -  from atoms to stars  -  was tailor-made
> just for us. ... Tweak any of them and you never existed.  Many are calling
> this revelation the "Goldilocks Principle," because the cosmos is not "too
> this" or "too that," but rather "just right" for life.
> 
> "In biocentrism, space and time are forms of animal understanding  -
> period.  They are tools of the mind, and thus do not exist as external
> objects independent of life.  Though still in its infancy, few doubt that
> this century, in which computer power and capabilities keep expanding
> geometrically, will eventually bring researchers to confront the problem in
> a serious way.  A 'thinking device' will need the same kind of algorithms
> for employing time and developing a sense of space that we enjoy.  ...
> Accepting space and time as forms of animal sense perception (as biologic),
> rather than as external physical objects, offers a new way of understanding
> everything from the microworld (for instance, the reason for Heisenberg's
> uncertainty principle and the two-hole experiment) to the forces, constants,
> and laws that shape the universe."
> 
>> But I think biocentrism points to a deeper meaning than life creating the
>> cosmos or the cosmos creating life.  I think it demonstrates empirically
>> grounded values revealed in resonant energies responsible for both.
>> Perhaps leading to an "intelligent design" permutation of some stripe.
>> But what appeals to me the most is that ultimately Nature makes the
>> most sense as our ultimate source of value.
> 
> 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?
> 
> "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?
> 
> Thanks again, John
> Ham
> 
> 
>>> I agree with the epistemology; I just don't see how it centers on
>>> biology.
>>> If you can explain the conscious precepts-to-biology connection, I might
>>> join in your exploration of Biocentrism.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, John,
>>> --Ham
>>> 
>> Well follow the link and let the author explain it best in his own terms.
>> Only Hegel was a true Hegelian.  I just know this, there has been more
>> hard factual research linking mind and matter in the last decade, than
>> philosophy has had time to catch up with.
>> 
>> imvho
>> John
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/