[MD] Social level for humans only

[Krimel]

[John]
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.

[Krimel]
I am theologically agnostic too but at this point it would literal take a
miracle to move past that one.

[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.

[Krimel]
The LCD? Not so much the mind/body problem comes in just before Newton with
Descartes. It is a modernist invention. Pre-moderns seemed to see themselves
in terms of their relationships to others and the community and not in SOM
terms.

[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.

[Krimel]
I give Pirsig enormous credit for the broad outline he paints and the sheer
number of insightful twists and spins he indeed presages. When his finger
points, it's in the right direction even when he's off the target. It has
been a great disappointment to me to see how botched up the MoQ get with a
close reading (Matt's term). I rarely disagree with Arlo about anything and
I definitely agree with that.

> [Krimel]
> 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?

[Krimel]
It isn't "attractive." It is terrifying. But the function of rationality is
to guide us beyond "emotional intelligence." If emotional intelligence were
infallible we wouldn't need reason or rationality. If the only kinds of
situations we face were hot stoves, reflex action would do the trick. Reflex
action works pretty good much of the time but emotions work better and in
more situations. Reason doesn't always work either but it is an improvement
on what came before.

Evolution does favor "betterness" it favors the odds in the casino of life.
If you have an edge, any kind of edge, you can keep your shirt. If you have
enough edge, (say, card counting or rule based thinking) you can own the
casino. 

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

[Krimel]
In an otherwise abysmal chapter Pirsig find an acorn with this:

"Biological evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces
at a subatomic level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static
inorganic forces at a superatomic level. They do this by selecting
superatomic mechanisms in which a number of options are so evenly balanced
that a weak Dynamic force can tip the balance one way or another."

When he says weak Dynamic forces, read better odds. See, DQ as uncertainty.

[John]
It means there is no value to the cosmos. No  real value IN the cosmos.  No
value underlaying the cosmos.  

[Krimel]
We are in the cosmos and we imbue it with value, our values. Seriously
talking about the inanimate world in terms of agency, preference and
"betterness" is a retreat into a world of spirits, and thunder gods. Animism
is universal in primitive peoples and small children. Grown-ups ought to
know better.

[John]
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?

[Krimel]
It does fly in the face of some people's interpretation of the MoQ, possibly
even Pirsig's. As mentioned earlier Pirsig paints in broad strokes and it's
no secret I think he missed a few spots. But then I also see a lot of merit
in the argument Barthes presents in "The Death of the Author." Pirsig's
opinion on the meaning of his text is just his opinion on the meaning a the
text. 

> [Krimel]
> 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?

[Krimel]
Getting a good feeling from chaos and entropy is definitely an acquired
taste. But look at it this way: the fact that you are here at all means the
odds are in your favor.

Or look at it this way: perhaps there is some grand cosmic purpose. What is
it? Whose is it? What would lead you to think that your personal purpose is
in line with a grand cosmic purpose. Maybe God created mankind because he
collects dead Jews and Cambodians. We think our purposes ought to align with
the creator's because scriptures tells us so. All scriptures were written by
people who had barely moved past banging rocks together. When those tales
were first told fire was a new technology corrupting the minds of the
younger generations. Broad strokes are great and we have lots in common with
our ancient forbearers'. We owe them our respect but hardly blind
allegiance. 

It's been a long, long time but there is an old Sean Connery movie "Zardoz"
that touches on this.

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

[John:]
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.

[Krimel]
It's a small point but St. John tells us that "In the beginning was the
Logos..." Mythos is Logos after we're done with it. Or, it is other people's
Logos. Logos survives as Mythos because even though the logic has proven
faulty, it retains emotional impact. Mythos survives when to story is worth
repeating.

Nihilistic probability, and chaotic chance are just facts about the
universe, they are not at the core of our being. In fact just the opposite.
At the core of our being are heuristics and strategies for assessing and
beating the odds. We have a built in motivation to survive and thrive. That
is what pattern recognition and emotions are for. They give us an edge
against the House.

Pattern recognition lets us create a detailed picture of the world on the
basis of limited information. Gladwell talks about this in his one of his
books, "Blink," I think. We believe that more information will help us make
better decisions. It turns out this is not the case. More information tends
to overwhelm us. We over think problems and make bad decisions.

We go with our gut because it works much of the time. Intelligence is not
necessarily a function of reason. But our gut is also often tragically wrong
and rational step by step methodical thinking more often than not improves
our odds. It allows us to see Truth in what scares the living shit out of
us. If Truth is a species of the Good then sometimes what's Good for us
tastes terrible.






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
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/md/archives.html