clark (clark@netsites.net)
Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:35:20 +0100
----------
> From: Bodvar Skutvik <skutvik@online.no>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS Re: Bodvar and God
> Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 4:33 PM
>
>
> 5 December Ken Clark wrote:
>
> > Good Morning,
> > First, I like the subject line of this thread. It pleases me to see
that
> > Bodvar has top billing over God. When I look at the sweep of history I
just
> > hope that he will do a better job. Right On! Bodvar.
>
> I'll try. The first act of Bo is to change the heading! If it stays
> the same I am not omnipotent.
>
> > I have been following the discussion with much pleasure. I would like
to
> > see if I can sort out my ideas and present them for criticism.
> > I get the feeling that the discussion is still bogged down in an
> > egocentric concept of humanity. It reads to me as if most of you are
still
> > looking at humanity as somehow special and separate from nature. This
is
> > not my feeling at all.
> > When I watch the wildlife and my yard dogs and cat interact I see
similar
> > motivations and anxieties that move humans. I see rudimentary thinking
and
> > planning ahead going on that are not a great leap from the position
that us
> > humans occupy. If one looks at the sweep of evolution as we currently
> > understand it, I believe that we can see a fairly linear development of
> > awareness and understanding that leads straight to us.'.......
> and so in Ken's splendid prose.
>
>
>
> I really appreciate your letters, and read with great interest the
> charming stories of dogs behavior, observations of geographical and
> linguistic particularities etc. But I also sense a note of despair
> over the intricacies of the LS dispute, and over the Q in general.
> You study the universe and find it objective. You study the past and
> find no great leap from animals to humanoids and "homo sapiens". You
> study your dogs and see rudimentary thinking and ability to
> anticipate the future.
>
> Absolutely, but this is not contradictory to the Quality idea, more
> to "ordinary" thinking that requires an inventor of - first - the
> natural laws and then creator of matter to obey these laws. Then an
> unbelievable chance that assembled matter into life, and a
> thinking spirit to enable life - including your dogs - to behave
> intelligently, and finally a ghostly soul to preserve our human
> identity.
>
> May I roam a little? I once read an article in "Scientific American"
> about a theory called "The Anthropic Principle". It started with
> telling how every physical constant (the charge of the electron and
> so on) seems to balance on a knife's edge; not only one such value,
> but all of them! We know what the chances are for one such feat, and
> then for a whole series to be exact on the point - and stay there. It
> is exactly zero! So, ordinary thinking (read: SOM) has to concoct
> such theories as the said Anthropic Pinciple to account for this
> miracle, and other wild theories of the same kind. "The many
> universes" for instance. In my younger days reading of such weird
> ideas gave me great thrills; now it bores me because I see it is
> vain efforts to get around their own obstacles.
>
> Instead of Anthropic principles why not the Quality principles which
> say that the physical constants came to attain their values because
> it was the ones that "offered themselves" to (the formation of)
> matter. There is no more need for an electron to have" a particular
> charge than for your dogs "to have" thinking ability to know when you
> are to take them for a walk (they sense the value of what keeps a dog
> alive and happy). Or for a human "to have" consciousness to think. We
> sense the same biological values as dogs when it comes to the bodily
> needs and pleasures, but the Social value's "feelings" of right and
> wrong override these to a great extent. Which in turn are modified
> by Intellectual values of what is "rational".
>
> PS. The Social values of dogs (which we derogatory
> call pack instincts) may also override their biology. The top dog is
> the one to eat first and mate the bitch, isn't that so?
>
> Have a nice weekend
> Bo
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Bodvar and Squad,
Please don't change the heading of this thread. I like it. Bodvar, you
are the rock around which we hipshooters circle. You provide a stable
center that gives us the freedom to wander and speculate, and be wrong, I
might add.
I remember reading the "Anthropic Principle" sometime in the past but I
didn't remember any of the details until you reminded me. I agree with you
that such constructions are not necessary. Once we get through the
energetics of the presumed "Big Bang" and settle out with the 92 elements
that were here the rest of it seems to be pretty much a foregone
conclusion. To my mind it is hard to see how it could have happened any
other way. To my mind the mystery and wonder reside in the beginning.
Plenty of room there for God or First Causes or anything else.
I don't have a problem with the Metaphysics of Quality or any of Pirsig's
insights. I think they fit the case better than anything I have seen
previously. Their explanatory powers fit well except for the Big Bang.
The thing that causes me th thresh around and try to make everything fit
my view, I think, is that I also accept Lovelock's idea of Gaia. That also
seems to me to be the best explanation for the physical process that has
produced this planet and us life forms that inhabit it than anything else I
have seen. Even if the Gaia Hypothesis is not correct it seems to me to be
a good way to view our situation. I sometimes wonder if too much emphasis
is not being placed on humanity in isolation when we should be more
concerned about our stewardship of the whole thing. That is why I have a
problem shunting the inorganic and biological levels off too much. I have a
feeling they are central to the concept. An acceptance of the Gaia view by
all of humanity would start a trend toward a more friendly attitude toward
the biosphere and ultimately result in a more pleasant and sustainable
Earth.
Bodvar, as I say, I think we have about the same view of Pirsig's
concept. Where we seem to part is in our placement of humanity in the
scheme.
I see a primordial soup with the raw materials and the energetics to
combine into living aggregations. I see that amino acids are detected
coming in from space. A big step toward life. I see a system that almost
demands us once we get the basic list of elements established. I see an
evolutionary system that looks extremely convincing. I can't think of
another way it could have happened. I see myself as being kin as well as
being dependent on the other life forms. Looks pretty to me.
Bodvar, If it weren't for you I would have to think my ideas through
before I put them out there. That wouldn't be nearly as much fun. As it
stands I know I can depend on you to pull me back toward the center when I
get too far out. Hang in there and don't change the thread name. I like it.
I think it is fitting. Ken Clark
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:26 CEST