[MD] Social level for humans only

[John Carl]

Krimel, Platt,

I don't think you were calling out to Krimel, exactly Platt.  Although his
mind does peep open a bit.  He used to be anti-freewill and at least now
he's agnostic on it.

[Platt]
> To those with an open mind who would like to learn more about what DMB is
> talking about I recommend an article by Charles Birch entitled, "Why I
> Became a Panexperientialist" at:
>
> [Krimel]
> Truth is I didn't get much farther than the first few sentence when I found
> this:
>
> "From my undergraduate years through my post-graduate years I was
> surrounded
> by materialists. These were scientists whose thought was dominated by the
> Newtonian worldview."
>
> There is really no need to go on. Almost all of the ranting a raving that
> goes one about this, especially from you, dmb, Ham and the like is ranting
> about the Newtonian world view.
>
>

John:

That's SOM, right?  I mean, there are variations upon the whole sub/obj
schema, but Sir Isaac certainly believed in it.  It's the lowest common
denominator of historical human thought, after all.




> Science has moved well beyond this and given those who care to look,




John:  I agree so far, Krimel.  And I give Pirsig credit there.  Not because
all scientists have at least read ZAMM, (although I'd be willing to be many
have) but he did presage a lot of the thinking that has evolved in the
sciences.  Not in a rigorously, philosophical academic way, as many seem to
criticize him on, but in a sorta broad-brush, artistic way that made
outlines broad enough and clear enough, and more importantly (Arlo!) VAGUE
enough to invite evolutionary development to continue.




> a
> breathtaking picture of probabilistic interaction of determinism without
> prediction.



John:  Ah well.  The moronist position again.  Tell me Krimel, what IS so
attractive about infinite probabilility to you?  Do you feel that hemmed in
by any potential of theism, so this seems the unassailable place to resist
its pull?

But what does that break down to?  What does "infinite probability" even
mean?

It means there is no value to the cosmos.  No  real value IN the cosmos.  No
value underlaying the cosmos.  It flies against everything the MoQ is and
stands for.   Which you must agree with,  plainly there is value for you,
you are here.   Why then do you speak as if there were not?



> Newton's causal billiard balls ought to be long gone but they
> are not. They lingers as the unquestioned assumptions of most people
> because
> they apply well to our everyday interactions in the same way Euclidian
> geometry works for carpenters. Because of their enormous heuristic value
> most people rarely see cause to go farther.
>
> But the Newtonian world view is unsatisfactory. When it undergirds your
> system of beliefs, it produces the feeling of dissatisfaction Birch talks
> about.  Personally I don't think a retreat into superstition, animism,
> panpsychic supernaturalism is the road out of the mess. I think instead the
> concepts derived from systems, theory, probabilistic models, chaos and the
> many things I have talked about over the past five years do a much better
> job, are more comprehensive, aesthetically beautiful, emotionally
> satisfying
> and conform more comfortably immediate experience.



John:

This is where I'm wondering why.   I realize that it's a cherished view
because it gives you good feelings and all that.  What inquirying minds want
to know is, why?  How?  How does chaos connect to "comprehensive,
aesthetically beautiful, emotionally satisfying" when the connotations of
chaos, randomness and such value-less mechanisms, are nothing but nihilistic
and anti-life?

And barring a good answer, maybe I'll score a "FUCK your questions! - YOU
can't peer into ME"  response like I'd get from Marsha or dmb.

Even tastier.



> The MoQ as you, dmb and
> AWGI is nothing more than this retreat into the Mythos.
>
>

John:

 I think you should have stuck it out a few more year in your philosophy
efforts of your youth, Krimel.   It's all mythos baby.

>From the beginning til now, the logos is just one extended evolutionary
development of man's efforts to tell himself stories about reality.  From
gods to math, we have made a narrative out of our experience.  In turn, our
narrative brings about interpretation of new experience and the mythos
evolves.   Part of our confusion and angst stems from the fact that our
modern age is so varied that we're exposed to choice in our myths.  Man
wasn't made for that and he gets way confused.  He needs a sense of
over-ridding value, a belief in a moral compass that pragmatically works.
Nihilistic probability, chaotic chance at the core of our being and cosmos,
just ain't gonna cut it.  But they do, evidently, for you.  Explain.


I believe the MoQ shows us a better way: Out of a cacophony of sensory
> clatter (Quality) and we detect patterns of relative certainty (SQ) against
> a background of the uncertainty (DQ). We produce meaning from the
> meaningless.
>
>
John:  Well if it's all just "we" doing the creating and producing, then I
can at least understand how you find comfort at being the center of the
cosmos.  Must be an ego rush, at least.  But how does one slip out of the
solipsistic wells of silence?

How do you handle conflict with others?  Power politics?  Force?  Celebrity
contests?  Stuff you all see on tv, all the time?  I dunno Krimel.  I think
you oughta examine your programming.

John