Re: MD Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (
Date: Thu May 05 2005 - 04:17:15 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Science vs. Theism: Where's The Beef?"


    [Arlo had said]
    > > The panpsychist "everything is mind" may well be what the MOQ follows,
    > > since I can't at this time understand what the difference is between the
    statements: (1) everything is mind, (2) everything is consciousness, and (3)
    everything is pattern, and (4) everything is Quality.

    [Platt responded]
    > I think the panpsychist and the MOQ say everything is
    > experience/consciousness, not "mind." Mind in the MOQ is the same as the
    > intellectual level, and patterns are not everything, just what's left in
    > the wake of DQ.

    [Arlo replies]
    I wasn't familiar with panpsychism. The "everything is mind" comes from
    Stanfords Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    But I do like "mind" characterized as the intellectual level. Of course, the
    gets us back to the cultural schism of separating the concept of "mind"
    (intellectual level) from "consciousness" (ability to perceive/respond DQ).
    Something I struggle with, but do appreciate the ability to expand my thinking.

    [Arlo had said]
    > > So maybe the solution is to divorce these concepts (identity,
    > > self-awareness, intent, and will- among others) from "consciousness", and
    consider them either as results of semiosis or some other process.

    [Platt responded]
    > Or perhaps place these concepts at their most appropriate MOQ moral
    > levels.

    [Arlo replies]
    The strand of semiosis most "true" to Vygotsky's sociocultural theory holds that
    only humans partake of semiosis, and so if such things as intent, free-will,
    identity, self-awareness, etc. are the result of being able to symbolically
    represent time and experience, only humans have these "traits". (Not all
    semioticians follow this, some suggest that animals do manipulate symbolic
    representations of "some" experience, but lack this, that or the other thing to
    represent abstract concepts or culturally latch these representations, and
    several have pointed out that Vygotsky was "charged" with placing "man" above
    "beast" by the Russian state). What is the view of the MOQ? I know semiotics is
    never specifically mentioned, but I remember this question being raised before.

    [Platt says]
    > I don't think we can ever resolve the question of whether designs or
    > patterns are intrinsic in the lower levels or imposed by our symbol-making
    minds. It's like the old question of whether beauty is in the object or in the
    eyes of the beholder. I tend to the intrinsic conclusion because of the
    efficacy (pragmatic if you will) of mathematics in describing inorganic and
    biological phenomena. The connection is too perfect to be an just human

    [Arlo replies]
    Well said. But for the record, I think "human imposition" is a little harsh
    sounding. I am suggesting only that the patterns reflect our current experience
    of observing quality at these levels. The "law of gravity", as an intellectual
    pattern, reflected the Quality the best observers at the time could see. Our
    "seeing" has changed, and so has the "pattern" we call "gravity". The
    underlying inorganic response to Quality has not changed.

    But I'm not sure I'd call "beauty" an "intellectual pattern". I know you've
    written quite a bit on this, so I'll step back and wait to hear your response.
    However, using your beauty question, my response would be that "beauty" is
    neither intrinic in the object, or in the eyes of the beholder. Beauty is
    Quality, is it not?

    [Platt wrote]

    > Not at all, as pointed out above. "Proof" in MOQ means high quality
    > intellectual pattern. When I see a design (pattern) I presume a designer. To
    me, that's a reasonably high quality conclusion. To others, since in our
    culture it immediately suggests God or something supernatural, it's rejected
    out of hand as low quality myth-making. You can put your faith on either side.
    Overall, I don't see one side being any "better" than the other.

    [Arlo replies]
    For what its worth, I don't reject spirituality as low quality myth-making, I
    reject what I call "religious nationalism", that somehow the "designer" choose
    to only reveal his message to a select group of people, who then are charged
    with "converting" the world to this nationalist view. To me, "God" (Quality,
    Buddha) are manifest in everything, and how peoples all over the world
    repsonded to this varies based on their unique culture. I reject that God
    "chose" a tribe in Israel, or only sent a Prophet to one place to deliver the
    message, or that "he" revealed himself only to the Aztecs. It's the height of
    arrogance (in my humble opinion) for the combined Occidental faiths to
    "believe" that the entirety of God's relationship with man was centered around
    a small area just east of Egypt, and aaaaaalllll other people on the planet
    were ignored. To be fair, my condemnation of occidental nationalism is only
    because it is the dominant theologic base of the western world. It would also
    be the height of arrogance for Buddhists to claim that the Buddha only concerns
    himself with Indo-Asian peoples. Or that the "Great Spirit" only speaks Sioux.
    This type of nationalism I feel is low quality static social patterns, yes.
    But, again, that's just for what its worth.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 05 2005 - 04:35:28 BST