From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Aug 29 2003 - 19:12:11 BST
Hi all
Is it correct to link consciousness with dynamic events and unconsciousness
with static patterns?
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: MD Forked tongue
> Dear Wim:
>
> > I wrote 27 Aug 2003 23:55:09 +0200:
> > 'No "concept" of any kind plays any role in the [MoQ] explanation [of
> > evolution].'
> >
> > Of course I use 'concepts' when explaining evolution. The point I tried
> > to make was, that the explanation doesn't causally or otherwise explain
> > 'evolution' (not the concept, but the 'tiger') from a 'concept' (like
> > 'betterness'). Amoebas appeared in evolution millions of years ago
> > without any 'concept' anywhere in sight.
>
> "Amoebas appeared in evolution millions of years ago without any
> 'concept' anywhere in sight" is an assumption on your part. I'll
> stipulate there were no human concepts around at the time, but I'm not
> prepared to buy the scientific notion of a complete absence of any
> "life force" that may include "concepts" or "purpose." To say "amoebas
> appeared" is to avoid the questions of how or why. Pirsig offers
> rational answers in Chapter 11 of Lila that are a far cry from
> science's absurd non-answer of "Oops.".
>
> > I like Paul's interpretation of evolution (because I share the value of
> > 'diversity' as 'better'). I hesitate to equate 'broader awareness' and
> > 'more expanded consciousness' with 'better'. It doesn't combine easily
> > with my appreciation for 'emotion' and 'intuition' as valuable (but
> > largely unconscious) human abilities.
>
> I also appreciate emotion and intuition, but also appreciate my
> expanded consciousness which allows me to control my emotions and check
> my intuitions against further experiences. Having these abilities is
> "better" than not having them. If we didn't, there would be little to
> distinguish us from the inhabitants of the biological level.
>
> > You wrote:
> > 'Habit or not, your purpose is to relieve a full bladder or stop the
> > annoying alarm.'
>
> > That's how I would rationalize my behaviour also. My point is that we
> > have neither the time nor the energy to rationalize all our behaviour
> > (let alone guide by first being aware of their 'purpose' and only then
> > doing things).
>
> Agree. Instincts and habits are great time and energy savers.
> Nevertheless, they do serve purposes.
>
> > You wrote:
> > 'Purposeful behavior doesn't require reasoning.'
>
> > Depends on what connotations of 'purpose' you want to stress. In the
> > sense of 'planned behaviour' it does at least require consciously
> > connecting a 'purpose' with 'planned behaviour' before the act. My point
> > (possibly sloppily expressed with the word 'reasoning') was, that most
> > behaviour is not preceded by conscious purposes.
>
> Agree. But are there purposes served by the unconscious? Yes. Like
> heart beating, digestion, breathing and full bladder signalling. :-)
>
> Best regards,
> Platt
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 29 2003 - 19:24:59 BST