"One can't be too humble"...Tom Stoppard, not Pynchon

[Joseph Tracy]

Beautifully said.  Philosophically i share the sense that this kind of poetic language- the dance of the not-two-  is the only way for words to get close to the nature of this mystery. Maybe it is so that these are the same conceptually but the word mechanical is or at leasts seems more precise in origin and meaning.
I think that vitalism( I  prefer a more taoist approach to trying to describe or think about these topics)has the edge as a metaphor in that the creative force remains mysteriously unified with the manifestation.( In taoism the no-thng is the essence of the ten thousand things or at least the vitalizing space or potentiality of the many) Saying people as physical and mental beings are mechanistic but not created just makes the watchmaker blind. Did a blind god really make dragonflies and zebras?  Wilson leaves the creative impetus to rules/limits/physical laws, but there still seems even within current science serious debate as to how absolute the rules are or whether the known rules/laws ( another awkward metaphor) are absolute and fixed or have sufficient explanatory power to cover what  is known. Part of what Tom Stoppard seemed to want to retain is the mystery that still resides even among scientists in quantum physics or consciousness.  In that I share his urgent resistance. But in the centrality and uniqueness of human altruism and family love I am less sure. 
  Anyway, I thought Wilson was handling the topic with very real humility and is so much more intellectually palatable than Dawkins and his crowd.
   
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 11:53 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Mechanistic or intrinsic spark are just differently-termed metaphors for the same thing: the creator/creation dynamic.  That subject is inherently paradoxical, both/and.  The very nature of a creation is limited manifestation that is actually limitless.  A dance of the not-two.
> 
> David Morris
> 
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> That is a tricky topic. If you say that the intelligence includes all, as in non-duality, then any and all actions take place in that allness, and are defined by it or limited by it. But how can the limitless be limited? Is it the same old question of free will? It has been proven that cognition is a step behind actual "happenings". For there to be an original action, would there need to be first an original thought, and is that possible if cognition is slower than "now"?
> 
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> Really interesting conversation. I felt Stoppard had a powerful underlying challenge but was rather gummed up in getting it across. I thought Wilson was very persuasive that altruism while admirable for traditional human value systems, may  also be coded into nature as a pragmatic mechanism enhancing evolutionary survival and diversity. The assertion of Wilson’s I am most uncomfortable with is of all human functionality, and essentially  of all physical functionality, being mechanistic.
>  It is a very weird metaphor or analogy to be insistent about.  One c

> ould easily argue that quantum reality is more analogous to the metaphors of  vitalism and intrinsic spark than to a machine which by definition is a created/designed tool for use by a shaping intelligence.
> 
> > On May 29, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > https://evolution-institute.org/article/the-playwright-and-the-scientist-a-conversation-between-tom-stoppard-and-david-sloan-wilson/?utm_content=buffer37894&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> www.innergroovemusic.com
> 
> 

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l