Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: If that's all there is, my friend... Message-ID: <1163@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Sep-84 13:20:22 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.1163 Posted: Fri Sep 28 13:20:22 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Sep-84 09:14:43 EDT References: <302@uwmacc.UUCP>, <1196@pucc-h> <1226@pucc-h>, <1155@pyuxn.UUCP> <1260@pucc-h> <1268@pucc-h> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 117 Another example of netnews reliability around these parts: I just read Rich Kulawiec's reply to Jeff Sargent's response to my article, without ever having seen Jeff's response itself. I thank Rich for pointing out some things about Jeff's article (and his assumptions) in his (Kulawiec's) reply, and I would say that he summed up about all I would have had to say, with only a few exceptions: >> I've said it before. I'll say it again. Because Jeff sees no purpose for >> living if "that's all there is", he *assumes* that there MUST be something >> external, otherwise HE would see NO purpose in HIS life. [ROSEN] > I've said it before, I'll say it again: YOU LIE -- or at least you are > passing on a lie which you have been deceived into believing. You've got it > backwards. Christians *know* deep inside themselves that "that" isn't all > there is. You are the ones who assume that this experience is not valid and > that there is no God to whom we are relating who brings meaning, purpose, > foundation, strength, healing to our lives. You speak of subjectivity with > contempt -- WHY?? What's wrong with it? [SARGENT] Most of the rest of my original article with the above title went into EXTENSIVE detail as to what is wrong with subjectivity!! It's hopelessly unreliable!! Our brain's power stems in part from our incredible patterning capabilities, the ability to identify items based on only a small amount of information within a pattern. While this is an incredible survival in the the "wild", and while this may have been a stepping stone which evolved into higher intelligence functions, in and of itself it is flawed. How many times have you run up to somebody, thinking it was someone else, only to ask yourself later how you could possibly have thought that that was the same person? How many times have you seen examples of the famous psychological illusion: PARIS IN THE THE SPRING (of which the above is a poorly constructed example), which shows how the human brain's patterning abilities cause it to see what it expects to see. The whole notion of "scientific method" and attempts at "objective analysis" is geared toward the incredible potential for flaws in our perceptive abilities!!!!! "Make sure what you're seeing is not the result of YOUR brain's misinterpreting the results!" It seems that for every time I go into detail on this topic (which dozens of others have represented, even on this net, better than I), including the fallacies of hypnotic recall and the notions of interpreting the perceptions of the world based on PREconceptions and expectations, there are ten further articles that ignore everything I and others have said, evading the WHOLE topic of "what is wrong with subjectivity", only to ask again as though they've never read the original material, "WHAT IS WRONG WITH SUBJECTIVITY?"!!!!! > Doug Dickey points out that the scientific method looks at all reality as > objects. Thus, people are also objects; the observer himself is merely an > object. You LIKE this world-view? [SARGENT] In what way are people NOT objects, Jeff? What evidence do you have for believing that people are any less "objects" than rocks and trees? Other than, of course, your desire for human beings to be considered as more than objects? Which brings us back to one of my favorite words: anthropocentrism. The notion that humans are either the center of the universe [as taught by the same church that persecuted those who thought otherwise] or somehow different or better than the mere "objects" around them. What is the basis for thinking this way other than one's wishful thinking and preconception? I'm sorry if there are people who feel that last sentence is some sort of attack (as many of my requests are interpreted to be). IT IS A QUESTION. I hope you (Jeff) and others can provide an answer. You ask whether I "like this world view". As I said in the original article: your liking or not liking the way the world is or desiring or not desiring it to be a certain way is not the basis for how the world is. It is only (apparently) the basis for the way you choose to perceive it. >> I feel sorry for Jeff if he >> has such a low opinion of physical life and "the physical body" that he >> feels the way he does about there having to be something else. [ROSEN] > You've never seemed to have a high opinion of it; you've written that all the > good in us, all the intelligence, the creativity, the wisdom, the intuition, > the emotions, are all only biochemistry; and I'm pretty sure you have in the > past used "only" or a similar word, indicating low position. [SARGENT] I use the word "only" simply because I expect nothing more. It is appropriate in comparison to your world view that claims more than what I describe. But, that fails to address the point made. I claimed that you had a (to me, unjustifiably) low opinion of the physical world/body/life. You simply retorted "Well, so do you." In fact, I don't. I don't consider being "just" or "only" biochemistry to be terrible at all. If your god exists, you are doing it (him) an incredible disservice by saying that there's got to be something more than this. I find the way the universe works, even from the admittedly limited perspective based on our current knowledge, to be incredibly fascinating, no matter whether it was created by a universal architect or by chance and "natural" processes. (What's an "unnatural" process? :-) I find the mechanisms of life to be no less fascinating, and I find living using those mechanisms (which include the "biochemical" base behind our actions, thoughts, and emotions) to be even more so. Why do you expect more from your deity than what it has created here (if indeed there is one and it did so)??? (Of course, I could go on and ask "Why do you expect for there to be a deity at all?", but I think I've already asked that...) > However, again you have things backwards. Actually, there didn't HAVE to be > any physical universe at all; God just chose to create it, for reasons I > certainly don't claim to know. We didn't HAVE to exist, but we do. And we > don't HAVE to have a relationship with God, trusting and following Him. No, there didn't have to be a universe as we know it at all. But there is one. It's here all around us. So? Why does that imply to you that there must be a deity who created it. Backwards, Jeff? Why isn't it backwards to assume god first and build your belief system around that? Why not ask first why you feel there must be a god, objectively (provided you understand the need to eliminate subjectivity), and then formulate a set of beliefs? Since my only source of material from Jeff to respond to was that which Rich Kulawiec included in his followup article, I apologize if I have taken things out of context. It appeared from the flow that Rich included all or most of Jeff's response article, so I would think that this would be unlikely. I hope that qantel!ken and hutch@shark get to read this, since it addresses many of the points that they have brought up with me in private communication. And I hope Jeff gets to read and act on this as well. -- Show people a flaw in their logic, and they'll punch you in the face. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr