It seems to me that entropy just is symmetry-breaking, which just is energy flow, which just is efficient causation. — John

Energy flow is efficient causation? Apples and oranges?

Questions about causation are usually why? questions. When asking why?, we're looking for how two things relate (or how a car relates to the whole train). For instance:

Why does my heartbeat speed up when I run?

Efficient cause: sympathetic nerve
Final cause: to speed up CO2 removal and glucose distribution

All the parties involved are following the path of least resistance. I'm not sure what entropy has to do with it (or if entropy is just a feature of the way we experience events.)

That is, the same DNA codon can produce different proteins, depending of the state of the cell at any one time. — StreetlightX

Genes can be turned on and off. I think the question on the table was whether epigenetics is an evolutionary factor... so for instance: what did the unprecedented scale of violence in the 20th Century do to us (in terms of our hardware)? It's unknown.

It may have been aliens.

but I only mention him to show that even the most hardcore of old-schoolers need to admit such views into their frameworks — StreetlightX

I'm sympathetic to the attitude that we need to slip from the grip of a strict naturalist outlook. And maybe you're right... that we'll do it a little at a time without anybody making a big deal out of it.

Emergent purpose... that would be a big deal. Future historians of science would want to pinpoint exactly how and when scientists started thinking in those terms.

(also, filler?? No way!).. — StreetlightX

It occurred to me after I read it that the last chapter could have been presented as a stand-alone essay. I don't know if anybody would have read it, though.

And for the mistaken view the biology is a branch of physics, you can try something like Robert Rosen's Life Itself. — StreetlightX

I appreciate your mentioning those various authors. This is one I actually did read, though. A lot of this book is borderline filler. His point is summed up in the last chapter. It's Kantian. Obviously. If that's the view you're advocating, that's fine. But it doesn't make sense to do that and then claim that "the facts of nature don't care" for prevailing views. Rosen's point is that our definition of life contains apriori forms such as final cause.

Even Dawkins, that doyen of evolutionary ‘reductionism’ is all too happy to admit that natural selection does and can in fact favour certain ‘directions’ of evolution: — StreetlightX

Dawkins is an adaptationist, which means his views are out of date. It's true there's some telos to his outlook. That's due to his project of using adaptation to understand everything everywhere. He hasn't been a practicing scientist for several decades.

It's not at all startling if you're versed in some of the more recent developments in evolutionary theory. — StreetlightX

Interesting stuff. It's also controversial (the quote you provided is, anyway.) It's speculative. And that's great. .

At this point, the prevailing view in biology (essentially a branch of physics), is that "Shit Happens" is a fair description of the driving principle in nature.

I think an alteration in that situation would require a more profound cultural alteration in perspective (something Kantian, perhaps.) I say it's a mistake to sniff at the magnitude of such a shift by imagining that a few imaginative scientists could dictate it. Yea... no.

One way to think about this is to make the distinction between teleology and teleonomy. The difference is between a telos which is in some way 'pre-existant' and 'external' to the system, and a telos which is generated internally by the system itself. A difference between transcendent and immanent telos. Evolutionary processes, to the degree that there is 'directedness' involved, involves teleonomy, and not teleology — StreetlightX

It looks like you're carving a system out of the sexual and asexual reproduction of plants and animals. That's a little bit of a startling proposition. We could think of a single organism as a system.

Which evolutionary biologist talks about "directedness" in evolution? I think the prevailing assumption is that random (or to avoid a philosophical quagmire, what appears to be random) changes are involved. The principle is exactly the same as the foundational statement of statistics: "Things vary."

So I ask, how can so many people look at the question of abortion without looking at the question of murder? — David

It's because fetuses prior to 20 weeks gestation can't live outside the womb. Collective intuition (spanning many cultures over an extensive period of time*) is that they aren't independent entities and aren't conscious.

I agree with you that it is a moral issue and have long wished that those who don't seem to be familiar with the concept of morality would exit the discussion because they aren't being helpful.

*The average book on uses of North American plants will point out which ones were used by Native American women to perform abortions prior to the arrival of the White Dude.

Fine. On Bullshit, then.

Democracy is a religion. Voting is a religious ritual. I saw that somewhere. Cult of the individual.

The US constitution allows the president to become a temporary dictator during wartime. Is that how European countries work also?

I think we should read the Constitution of the European Union. That would be cool.

Maybe less democracy. Just schedule them and people will read them?

Have you noticed that one drop at a time, you're turning into a conservative? The saying advises that this happens to everybody who isn't an idiot.... but still, it's weird to see it. It happened to my little brother when his first child came along.

I think the bleeding-heart liberal response is: "Life brings us all to our knees sooner or later. There's no need to worry that a liberal agenda is going to annihilate all hardship and rob the next generation of the stress that nature requires for the creation of strength and flexibility. What we liberals are on guard against is rationalization of carelessness or malice, which may give rise to billionaires, but also creates cynicism amongst millions.

Uh... I just lost my train of thought.

They teach us that only a special kind of elite class can be heroic, and we have to be vain, delusional, childish or foolish to think we can be like them. — Wosret

Come back to the light-side, Luke. The first Superman comic came out the same year Seabiscuit beat War Admiral. It means that there's something Super that's latent in every regular everybody.

Or rather - from a naturalist perspective anyway - that the appeal to 'objects' over and against 'subjects' isn't a very good strategy to the degree that objectivity itself isn't exactly 'natural'. There ought to be 'a different way of thinking'. — StreetlightX

The average thing can be either a subject or an object. It just depends on the story that's being told, right? For instance, "The ball hit the window." We all know the ball isn't supposed to have agency or any other unnatural qualities... but that's how we speak of it.

"Karen hit the window." Here we need to know more about the story to see what kind of action-maker Karen was. Was she conscious when she hit the window? Does it matter in regard to the distinction you're drawing between subject and object?

Per Heidegger, the Latin subjectum was a translation of a Greek word that meant core. The idea of a thing (its unchanging identity) is the thing's core.

Since an objective account is likely to treat these "cores" rather than the ever changing appearance of things, the objective account is apparently of the subjectum. And a purely subjective account (which would be rare beyond the population of the stoned) would be primarily the outward appearance, perhaps unhinged from identity and idea.

But just as you can clearly see the valley when you're on the mountain (but can't see the mountain itself so well), and you can clearly see the mountain while standing in the valley (but you can't see the valley even though you're in it)... maybe subjective and objective accounts would be expected to be about the opposite of their namesakes.

But each leaves a fundamental illusion of self intact: the worthless self. Like we did before adopting an idea of "transcending the self," we still think our self is worthless-- why do you think we are so desperate to transcend it? " We posit our worth in terms of following an idea, text or tradition, rather than in terms of the self. Even as we break the illusion we don't matter, we are still caught under the spell that our selves are worthless. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Awesome post, Willow. I could write for a while giving examples of how what you're saying is true of both Christianity and Buddhism. I don't think it's quite the whole truth, though.

The symbolism behind a Gothic cathedral is that when entering, you shed your unique, earthly identity and enter the protected sanctum of the House of God. In the same way voting is a symbol of the establishment of the voice of the people, just walking into a Gothic cathedral is a symbol of unification with God. It would appear that the self must be pretty awesome to be worthy of blending with God. Bernard McGinn, an expert in Christian mysticism, explains Eckhart's teaching. It's that down deep inside, God was always there. It's the foundation of your being. We're all like dandelions growing out of the same spot. Each dandelion face rises up to peer into other faces, not realizing that every face is a facet of the same thing. By this scheme, transcendence of self is not exactly loss of self. It means realizing that you are me. Losing isolation, I guess.

I found that studying Tae Kwon Do while getting divorced is a quick way to get cut because you're exercising like crazy, but not eating. I guess the Auschwitz look comes next, but I never got that far.

Maybe they should be required to reside in neighborhoods with high levels of gun violence. — Bitter Crank

Yea. But nobody's kids should be exposed to drive by's. We'd have to take their kids away from them first.

I take it that you do not appreciate my thoughts. I'd be grateful if you would just ignore them, since you do not wish to engage with them. — unenlightened

It would have been appropriate for you to have prefaced your earlier statements with "These are my personal thoughts and shouldn't be construed as explaining anything about Zen Buddhism." In that case, I wouldn't have responded to your post.

since I am claiming that the phrase has meaning for the unenlightened - so I am indeed in exactly the position to know. — unenlightened

So again, it would be appropriate for you to offer your opinion on whether "transcendence of self" has meaning. Explain what it means to you. Perhaps offer that you've observed that in your language community, it has meaning x. Or if you wanted to be astonishing, you could have asked John why he supposes that the phrase has no meaning.

Again... if you want to reign in the authoritative tone, I'll be happy to ignore your posts.

Well you understand it in the context of physical training - crossing the pain barrier; not being self-indulgent. One 'pushes oneself' necessarily from a place of exteriority to the self that is being pushed. That is why the trainer is useful, apart from a certain expertise, as the psychological support against the weakness of oneself. — unenlightened

So for the record, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with Buddhism (Zen or otherwise). It appears to be some sort of S&M spirituality.

It's only a meaningless idea if you are entirely single-minded and at one with the universe. — unenlightened

As if you would know. Give me a break.

What struck me recently is that those who present the obstacle to gun control apparently aren't feeling the consequences of their actions. It tends to always be somebody else feeling it.

NRA members should be required to visit families who have experienced loss.... or something like that.

I agree.

The concept of guilt appears in the oldest known work of literature, the Epic of Gilgamesh. All epics have a philosophical aspect. Interestingly, a sense of guilt comes to Gilgamesh by way of contact with a character named Enkidu, who is sort of like Gilgamesh's wild-born twin.

The message appears to be that guilt does not come from civilized city-life. It's emerges from the depths of our hearts (in which our wild roots are still evident.)

True. Mystical traditions sometimes stray into moral ambiguity, though. The Tao Te Ching does. So does Rumi. Maybe this was the Zen lesson about how to be an asshole.

But the old dying man was sort of pushing it on him... like: "No no! You have to take it and show respect for the sacred documentation!"

Where's mcdoodle. Somebody should write a play.

So we can go back to business-as-usual, right? — Wayfarer

Or go visit the ocean at the end of the lane. Whatever.

Rumi says shut the fuck up.

Writing as one who often defends religious belief on these forums, and cops quite a lot of stick for so doing, I had thought that the iconoclasm of this anecdote would appeal to the contributors here. But instead, sentiment, or manners, prevailed - 'how inconsiderate!' But with no insight into what is at stake - why the story is told, what is important about it. — Wayfarer

Eh... Rumi says you never escape shadow. Seeing the story in a mundane or vulgar way is part of the shadow created by too much piety. I'm not saying you're pious at all. I'm just saying it's there.. don't you sense that? Westerners sometimes start generating something kind of puke-worthy when they get their hands on asian religion. Poking fun at it just pops the balloon.

Not at all. 'Zen' is the Japanese version of the Chinese 'Ch'an', which pre-dated the absorption of Buddhism by the warrior classes in Japan by centuries. — Wayfarer

Yes, I know it originated in China. You could have taken my comment the way I intended.. that Zen exists today because it was embraced by the Samurai who ruled for a while. But you chose to bring me shadow. We do that for each other. We're so nice.

Well, that's a shame. I did realise the story was dramatic, but what appealed to me was the idea of cutting through the inessentials. I will take heed of what kinds of things to post. — Wayfarer

Cutting through inessentials. Zen exists because it was part of Bushido. There was some sword play involved.

Zen Budhhists vary from the older sort in that they don't believe the pathways set out by Buddha are necessary for attaining enlightenment. They believed it can just sort of spontaneously happen. BAM!

I agree with them that people can bungle themselves getting all tied up in some asshole's writings. But I also agree with Zen's critics that it's attractive to some to believe that applying oneself to a path isn't worthwhile. Sometimes facing things about yourself and the world is difficult. A person may strongly desire to instead insulate themselves, perhaps by going on and on about racism to keep themselves from ever noticing what really going on down in there.

Apparently you didn't understand anything I said. So we're even.

You said:

Not at all. I'm giving my opinion. But evidence is evident to consciousness; evidence of consciousness is evident to consciousness. Therefore consciousness is evidence; evidence is consciousness. — unenlightened

This part just didn't make much sense to me. You and I might look for evidence of consciousness in regard to a third party. In that case, the evidence we gather would not generally be considered to be consciousness itself.

I have never asked a fellow human "Are you conscious?" Nor have I ever asked myself that. But it seems clear to me that talk of "evidence of consciousness" doesn't have much to do with either case. Interestingly, I'm able to say the preceding with a fair amount of confidence in spite of my inability to clearly define consciousness. My knowledge of it is apparently more in the "know how" department.. that is, the ability to correctly use the word.

What I was saying before is that one needs evidence to doubt evidence, and there is no other place to obtain it but experience. To doubt the reality of experience one needs the access to reality that one seeks to deny. — unenlightened

This was directed at anon's evolutionary theory (which is accepted by a fair number of pretty intelligent people). I think for those who think it all the way through, it's easy enough to posit some special parting with the veil of ignorance supposedly cast by nature. It's actually reminiscent of the concept of gnosis (or maybe revelation.) Every generation thinks they're the first to puzzle this kind of shit out.

"Imagine that we inhabit a two dimensional space and that we ourselves are two dimensional. Consider how it would seem to us if a spoon passed through our world. Perhaps we would eventually evolve to the point of being able to discern the truth that is beyond our powers of perception."

-- the adherent to "special insight"

Your conclusions do not appear to follow. Anon is right to suspect that if your view has merit... it isn't formulatable.

:D

Certainly Ari's is an immanent, polis-based justice. At the heart of it is a famous and brilliant passage on 'equity' (V 10 of the Nicomachean Ethics) which I gather modern lawyers still use as a basis for consideration of complex cases, which says that there will always be a justice beyond mere rules. — mcdoodle

Cool. Thanks!

Does that mean we have a conflicted nature?
— Mongrel

What do you mean? — Thorongil

Whatever we do must come out of our nature, right? If it's in our nature to curb our own nature.... we have a conflicted nature.... right?

"No more war" vs "USA."

'No more war' is a cry for moral justice
'USA' is nationalistic declaration — Cavacava

Right. The "No more war" chanting was coming from Sanders supporters and it was directed at Leon Panetta. My guess is that we'd probably get a slightly different answer from each chanter if we asked them what it means. But the answer coming from the rest of the Democratic Party: "USA" makes it sound like pacifism vs the practical need for defense.

Pacifism is not and never has been a practical viewpoint. There's a moral dimension to it, but where it appears, there's likely to be deep misgivings about anything good ever coming out of war. I say that Augustine's view (which is similar to Chomsky's in some ways) is conducive to pacifism because it's saying that government is implicitly a condemnation. That hints at the possibility that we could get by without it if we were just moral enough.

If the State's aim is towards the Highest Good for its citizens, then it ought to coincide with man's highest goal. If one of man's highest goals is "No more war" then that goal can be part of the nationalistic goal of a strong, just, State united under common laws..."USA".

If the State is not protecting its citizenry, not treating them fairly, not enabling its citizenry to meet or exceed their needs then its citizenry will rebel against the state, trying to make it change so that they can reach their goals. — Cavacava

You're sounding a lot like Marcus Aurelius on the role of the state. That implies that you live in the modern day Rome.

What do you mean by "identity is so embedded in language", and how does that relate to circularity? — Moliere

Existence without essence is something one can point to... obviously it can't be described. So most speech we encounter about identity is about essence. The identity train has already left the station. It would be a waste of time to peer into all that yapping looking for an origin story.

I saw it, but it's been awhile. I remember liking it. By recollection I seem to remember it being mostly about mortality. — Moliere

Yep. Mortality is a ripe angle from which to ponder identity. Sitting at a funeral, one of the characters in the movie says, "I used to be a baby."

There's a bunch of food for thought there... I need to percolate on it.

I don't think there is justice, and therefore there is no end to revenge-cycles, without a State. So we shouldn't kill all the lawyers after all :) — mcdoodle

Interesting. On the one hand, it seems that revenge comes from a desire for justice. The state's justice... is it a stand-in for divine justice?