Home

Posted By Jane on April 13, 2001

Q. I would like to discuss with you a couple of comments you made in your responses to inquiries sent to your website. The first explanation I would like relates to your response to a respondent who asked you whether or not were you real. You initially responded that you, in effect, changed your answers because it “only reflects the reality that I change.” I would like to have a quantification of this argument in detail, for if you have any real belief in dualism, or the belief that God exists and we also exist in a physical realm, then you cannot at all make that statement with any confidence. Secondly, you eventually make a claim that a dog is “a powerful intelligent creature.” The only thing that can truly be established is that dogs, and all other animals below human beings, have no more than rudimentary intelligence. Namely, they can only fully realize the potential of their instincts. Dogs and other animals are completely barred from “intelligence”.
- David Hefner

A. For your first comment, it’s true I said I change my answers, the idea behind that statement has to do with the fact that I don’t take myself too seriously, meaning, I recognize my thought process as an exploration of thinking- not a definitive method to amass concrete answers. Every answer I every come to exists and is viable- but simultaneous answers exist for every question and I am capable of playing with different realms of thought in order to enjoy a lively argument or challenge myself to apply my thought process in new directions and ways. I’m interested in questions for their power to raise potential possibilities, not settle into a statement of undying truth. Questions are opportunities to open one’s mind to the dynamic force of change. I don’t use questions as things to lead to stagnant justifications/solutions. Through thought I often change my mind and I like to recognize that my own philosophical nature is always arriving at new ideas evolved from previous ideas. The statement “I change my answers” refers to the fact that I change, that I am a dynamic creature and knowledge is a dynamic force, both things being subject to being torn down and rebuilt. In fact the process of self (becoming), knowledge (thinking) are all about change and growth. As for, Dualism & God- those are two whole other exciting topics. When you say dualism, I’m not sure what you refer to specifically- so I can’t respond to that unless you clarify it a bit. But as for God, I will give you a short response, since it was tangential in your comment, I do not believe in God. I believe in the idea of God and recognize that God is a reality for many people on our planet, God does exist. However, for me personally in my life, I don’t believe in God and in my picture of reality God only exists as an idea or a character, like the tooth fairy or Santa.
A dog IS a powerful intelligent creature. I do not hold human intelligence above other intelligences that exist in the animal kingdom. Your second comment addresses the different definitions we hold for the word intelligence, and the fundamental disagreement we hold about how the universe is structured. People DO posses a unique intelligence, but so do bees, as do dogs- as do other creatures. I do not hold human intelligence as being higher than any other- I despise the categorization that leads to the separation of ideas to exist in levels of importance. I do not think there is a hierarchy in place that delineates importance. Humans are often bound to that structure of organization, but I actively despise deeming universal importance based on my own experience. Sure, humans are great, they landed on the moon and talk over copper wire with abstract symbols- but bees see in ultra violet and communicate specific directions to physical locations three dimensionally with dance. I don’t know what goes on in a bees mind- or a dog’s- so I can’t pass judgment on their thought processes. It’s true humans have the wonderful neo-cortex that makes us fancy & chatty, but MIND and BRAIN are different and a dog’s brain is certainly smaller but I don’t have the tools to know or understand a dog’s mind and I refuse to take a chance underestimating a dog. Humans are the most pompous, self-important creatures compared to all the other animals, based on my observation. Of course, I have my own feelings about situations that I can prioritize, but as for applying my interpretations universally- I don’t think my view or any other view is more or less valuable than another universally (i.e.: an idea can be more valuable to me- but I place the value- the value doesn’t exist independent of me). All views exist based on different things and I don’t judge a being’s point of view- I recognize it exists for them as strongly as my own exists for me. There is no right or wrong, good or evil. Those IDEAS exist- just like God- but those ideas serve humanity’s need to organize things based on their personal opinions of what is valuable. I do not hold a humanocentric view of the universe. Personally, I think things can be good or evil- right or wrong- but those are MY feelings not universal truths.

Category: Philosophy
Tags: