Re: MD Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Thu May 05 2005 - 13:56:52 BST

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


    > [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.

    I think manipulation of symbols suggests the intellectual level in the
    MOQ. But as Pirsig pointed out, intellectual patterns began at the social
    level in the service of human biological and social needs.

    > [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.

    Point well taken. Our "seeing," and the resultant intellectual patterns,
    especially those of science, are subject to change. I assume that's what
    is meant by a "paradigm shift."

    > 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?

    Absolutely. I appreciate the correction. Thank you.
    > 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.

    Very "worth it" IMO. I agree. I believe, however, that until there's a
    widespread belief in the rational morality of the MOQ, the Judeo-Christian
    morality of the West is a higher quality social pattern than the pattern
    of moral relativism which invariable leads to an "anything goes"
    weakening of social bonds. We see some of the effects of this weakening
    today in the splintering of our society into disparate and competing
    political groups, many claiming victim status. Pirsig attributes much of
    this social degeneration to the scientific worldview which denies any
    notion of a generic moral foundation in the universe.

    Any thoughts? What basis for a social pattern of morality other than
    offered by Judeo-Christianity would you suggest? Should we all become
    Buddhists? Not that there would be anything wrong with that. :-)


    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 - 13:58:53 BST