MD Meaningful cosmology?

From: Patrick van den Berg (cirandar@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 22:43:54 BST

  • Next message: Yale Landsberg: "Re: MD Evolution of levels"

    Here’s a little essay I took the time to write. Have fun, Patrick.

    Towards a return to a cosmological perspective of values and morals

       It is frequently discussed in this forum that cartesian philosophy,
    or ‘SOM’, can be transcended by the MoQ. Here I argue that part of
    Descartes’ error was to cut us of from a wide, meaningful cosmos, and
    how a system like a metaphysics of quality can throw us back in a more
    valueable cosmos.
       Cartesian philosophy has the following properties:
    a) The mind and the material world are two different things.
    b)We can only understand both worlds by means of reason and
    experimentation.
       In the evolution of science, only the material world was emenable to
    experimentation, so knowledge about the material has evolved
    dramatically, whereas the mind was pushed in a small, trivial ephimeral
    and epiphenomal corner of reality. This alone cuts us of from a
    meaningful place in the world, or the universe at large.
       But the priority of subjecting nature to experimentation has had the
    particular consequence, that those parts of the world which are most
    easily subjected to our experimental drive, have gained priority in our
    worldview. In science, this means that newtonian and quantum mechanical
    science has gained priority over relativity. Experiments on relativity
    are quite hard to perform.
       Experimentalism in science has swung further to instrumentalism: only
    what can be manipulated, should be investigated and schould be applied
    in technological devices. Obviously this has created a whole new world
    from ca. 1700 to anno 2003 as compared to the rest of earth’s history.
    There were virtually no computers 50 years ago, let alone in the 4
    billion years before that.
       From fundamental science to applied mass-technology, there is another
    swing in the instrumentalistic direction in society as a whole, called
    consumentalism. Although technology has made it possible not to spend
    most of our times growing and harvesting food, we work only to be able
    to buy food, cd’s and dvd’s, gasoline for our cars, organized holidays
    and so on. I’m not saying here that this is a bad thing all in all, only
    that we obviously value those things money can buy.
      What we miss, is our contact with these parts of the world science
    can’t put to use. An obvious example is our place in Earth’s ecosystem.
    Tigers and lions aren’t a threat for us anymore. Most ‘wild’ or free
    animals don’t cross our paths anymore.
      Outside Earth’s sphere ;-), asside from an incidental newsreport on a
    newly discovered planet outside our solar system, or that Mars is
    exceptionally close to Earth on August 27, 2003, we don’t integrate
    stories about the world outside our planet in our daily lifes. There’s
    no obvious way to manipulate it, so we don’t value paying attention to
    the wider scheme of things.
       A devotion of the universe, or even the sun as the Egypts did, is no
    longer there. Our religion is focussed on what money can buy for us
    today or tommorrow. The vast world outside Earth- that our power can’t
    affect- is ignored, or pushed in a marginal place. But that need not be.

       Values can be changed by changing our morals. This can be achieved
    even when standing in a traffic-jam on the highway. Instead of trying to
    push the next car with your eyes, let them wander in the sky or onto the
    trees (if it creates no danger!). No, there’s nothing we can do to
    change the weather, but personally I find a tree waving in the wind
    always quite intriguing to watch. And what I see, is what is part of me,
    as schemes like the MoQ acknowledge.
       So our morals, I argue, should expand to the non-controlable. Our
    identity lies not only in what we can put to use today. Our identity
    stretches out to every star in the universe, every bacterium or even
    virus, and to every tree and plant and flower in our rooms. When we can
    rationally conclude, as the MoQ allows us to do, that the stars are
    meaningful for our identity, merely because they are part of what we see
    and what we can understand, then we can live in a meaningful cosmos
    again. We are not only what we can manipulate.

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
    http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

    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 : Thu Sep 11 2003 - 22:44:42 BST