Re: virus: Re: inconsistent worldviews
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:28:18 EST

In a message dated 2/19/99 9:22:47 AM Central Standard Time, writes:

<< Jake, I love your tenacity >>. . .

Thanks for noticing!


>>and genuinely agree for the most part with your materialistic and rational
worldviews, but, I think you are painting yourself into a corner here. >>

I could imagine how one might think so, but I don't see it that way.

>>Just the basic assumption that a person has the right to happiness argues
against this worldview stance. We are not computers (as we have now) that can only deal in 0 or 1, right or wrong, on or off.<<

No we can appreciate consistency in many more complex dimensions than basic binary. I don't see how happiness is incompatible with rational emergent materialism.

>>We can keep many views which conflict with each other if for no
other reason than to trigger brain candy. It does not automatically lead to psychosis, and may lead to delusion - which is not necessarily bad - after all, we all like to think of Santa as real when we are little, and I don't see kids going crazy over it (except for the next morning).<<

I don't think every delusion, and and every inconsistency is going to doom us to the nuthouse. In fact some of the childhood delusions also serve the function of innoculating us, or at least some of us, against greater delusions in adulthood. I can assure you that my children will be visited by Santa Clause. Though I may not have them sitting on strange mens' laps.

>>I think you might say that it is still meaningless - I don't think so - I
suspect it is our "base" or "natural" state. The starting point from which to work<<

Even as credulous children we know how to be rational. Maybe not consistently, and maybe not tenaciously, but I think it is natural to for everybody to to find pleasure in meanings, and rationality is the greatest tool to do this. Irrationality tends to destroy meaning or leads to delusion, which unneccessarily risks great disillusionment.

>>As we all obviously dabble in Philosophy, and hold ourselves to concepts of
rationality, we are a somewhat unique grouping of people. We seriously wish to have an open and accurate single worldview.<<

I don't think that we are unique in these desires. Though I do think that we are more pro-active and reflective, rather than passive and reflexive.

>>An admirable goal with little possibility of success.<<

But a great journey, with immense possibilities for progress.

>>No one of us has anywhere near the knowledge we need to create a single -
functioning worldview that explains all.<<

Can we value the the progress that we can make, instead of grieving for goal that we think we cannot?

>>I do agree that so far, the materialist viewpoint is the most accurate and
successful, but I need to understand how to fit the abstract into the worldview - and as you see, we cant get anyone to agree on how. There are holes in the material worldview, or we would have definitive, verifiable proof. Doesn't our method require this?<<

Why? Are you afraid to speculate about materialistic explanations? As long as we hold these speculations open to rational criticism, it is not faith. As long as we hold material evidence as legitimate justification in verifying/falsifying it is still a materialistic speculation. In fact it is just such speculations that have spurred the collection of proof forward. Our world-view evolves as it should. Current "holes" do not require that we fill them with mystical fluff, or supernaturalisms. Definitive, verifiable proof is certainly the begining, but if it were the end as well, we probably wouldn't gather much of it.

>>That is where our problem with Robin comes from. She has always maintained
that the intangibles are beyond the materialists viewpoint, and I believe she is wrong, but right now the evidence stands against us, I think. I NEED MORE KNOWLEDGE dammit. Ill have to dedicate myself to non stop thinking and collectiong from now on! Hehe

Bill Roh

A lack of evidence, is not necessarily evidence standing against anything. I think part of the beauty of an emergent materialistic world-view is that we do not pretend that it is closed and complete. It is open and evolving. Buck up, Bill! There is nothing wrong with not having all the answers, or being willing to speculate about them. It think we at least speculate honestly, and in ways that encourage us to actually look for answers in this universe.

It is one thing to have inconsistencies in your world view - I am sure that we all do - I am sure that I do. It is another thing to hide inconsistencies under rocks of faith. And it is even another thing to say that inconsistencies are necessary things that should be expected and not resolved. And yet another to actively seek them out or claim them as a sign of enlightenment. I think I have put those in about the right order from least to most undesirable situations in my estimation.