More Metaphysics Editor’s Comment: I think that one of the essential characteristics of human beings is that we seek to find meaning in life,
and in what we do with our lives. In the July-August-September issue (on page 46) William Dixon proposed that, in a sense, anything in motion is alive: in this sense indeed the universe itself is alive – a potentially very meaningful metaphysical concept and one foreshadowed in Hindu and Buddhist thought, as well as in the writings of St. Augustine. He proposed four new terms to denote categories of things that are alive in this sense, but are not necessarily sentient. Peter Dohms took him up on some of his ideas: here is the exchange.
To the Editor:
The purpose of this brief essay is to reply to the article by William Dixon, CPG-03659. Mr. Dixon solicited feedback at the end of his provocative article.
Near the end of the article, Mr. Dixon offered the state-
ment, “Science and religion are mutually exclusive subjects that should not be confused” (emphasis added). This statement comes perilously close to making a claim that “Faith and Reason are incompatible.”
I disagree profoundly with such a claim. Faith, practiced in the absence of reason, devolves to superstition. Reason, practiced with an absence of faith, devolves to scientism (“Scientism is the view that only scientific claims are mean- ingful.” – Rational Wiki. Taken to the extreme, scientism thus becomes a religion of its own.). Faith and reason are essential companions if one is to study the meaning of our universe.
It is truly stated that science can never prove a hypothesis; hypotheses can only be disproved. It is, however, impossible for science to disprove the hypothesis that God exists, since science cannot delve into the supernatural. Science is not competent to disprove the claims of faith. Similarly, faith is not competent to disprove the hypotheses of science that the
weight of scientific evidence strongly supports; for example the most likely amount of time that has passed since the Big Bang.
There is another point where Mr. Dixon’s essay needs clari- fication. He states, “Geology is alive.” The underlying meaning that I derive from that statement is that our planet is alive. To be alive implies consciousness of self. To therefore imply that the Earth is a living being with self-consciousness mirrors the ancient Greek myth of Gaia. If that is Mr. Dixon’s intent, it should be clarified. If his claim is that the Earth is alive but lacks self-consciousness, that contrasting thought should also be clarified. Certainly, our planet is a dynamic place and that dynamism may be one of the principal reasons that it is so filled with vibrant life (compare Mars, where plate tectonics, had it ever existed, has come to an end and self-conscious life appears to be absent or extinguished).
I commend Mr. Dixon for broadening his mind in this fash- ion. His CPG number is low enough that he certainly has had sufficient time to ponder these questions, and it is heartening that he continues to do so.
Sincerely, Peter Dohms, CPG-07141
Response by William Dixon to Peter Dohms: Mr Dohms,
Thank you for your response to my article. It is sometimes difficult to get one’s head around a new concept. I will try to address your comments in order.
First comment: Science and religion are mutually exclusive subjects. Science is based on data; religion is based on faith; reasoning is a brain process used by both of them. I never meant to imply that faith and reason are incompatible.
Your paragraph about science being unable to prove a hypothesis seems to me to be a restate-ment that science and religion are mutually exclusive to each other. Faith is not a data point.
Second comment: Geology is alive. The English language gradually (or sometimes rapidly) changes over historical time. Existing words take on new meanings, and completely new words are introduced. The 1890s were called the “Gay Nineties”; and later a couple of young women took a trip to Paris and wrote a book “Our Hearts Were Young and Gay”. Since the 14th century, gay has meant “happily excited or
www.aipg.org
merry”. Since I’ve graduated from school, gay now also means homosexual. That is the most radical change in meaning I can think of in a long time. The drug makers come out with completely new words every couple of weeks.
What I am proposing is a brand new seventh meaning for the word
‘alive’. The 11th Edition of the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary lists six: only the first relates directly to our discussion, “having life: not dead or inanimate”. My proposal is that an additional meaning of ‘alive’ be accepted for things in motion, which includes just about everything, and I’m proposing four new words to differentiate between the four main sciences. Biolive would have the same meaning as the first listing of alive in Merriam Webster. Physicalive would relate to physics; chemicalive would relate to chemistry, and geolive would relate to geology.
Third comment: Self-consciousness would be an attribute of some
of the biolive things. Plate tectonics, seafloor spreading, orogeny, sub- sidence, folding, faulting, etc. would all have as one of their attributes that they are ‘geolive’.
I hope that this has clarified my idea for you; if not, please respond
again. The worst thing that can happen is for us to agree to disagree. William Dixon, CPG-03659
Oct.Nov.Dec 2017 • TPG 41
A Conversation sparked by William
Dixon’s, CPG-03659, “A Philosophical Theory” published in the July/August/ September 2017 issue of the TPG.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56