Hi Ian I refer to post-modern excess that seem to give science no value. Like myself, I am sure you agree it has much value.
DM ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:34 PM Subject: Re: [MD] subject/object: pragmatism > Hi David, > > In the course of your responses to DMB in the DMB / Matt conversation > you wrote these paragraphs ... > >> >> DM .... I am glad that [James & Dewey] still keep faith with science but >> too uncritically though. The Eurpoeans are more critical but they do go >> to far and get silly. >> >> DM: Interestingly, it seems to methat some of the reasons Pirsig gets to >> the >> MOQ is because he sees precisely how science and 'quantity' >> have done something to diminish experience and hide its qualities from >> us. >> We need a more MOQ compatible science, Dewey helps, >> but we need to go further. The philsopher of science Nick Maxwell raises >> the >> issue of the value-blindness of Enlightenment based science >> in his work. A similar theme to Pirsig. Maxwell likes Pirsig too. Science >> need to be more pragmatic and clearabout what values it >> is trying to realise when it researches,rejecting knowledge for >> knowledges >> sake. Of course, the Enlightment claimed to be objective and >> that it did not need values as part of it power struggle with religion. >> But >> the next dialectical twist is it to add these qualities back to >> its conceptual framework having won its separation from religion. >> >> DM: Agree absolutely (ironic use of word) science is clearly very useful >> but >> also dangerous. I think in the past it has been very SOM based, >> or even only SQ based. As it develops it seems to be opening to something >> more like the MOQ as it finds DQ at workin nature, i.e. >> that there is more to reality than laws and patterns, there is the flux, >> the >> emerging, the dis-emerging, the levels, on-going DQ creation. >> > > I say, this a great summary of the dynamic "enlightenment" process of > a "scientific" approach to philosophy and a more philosophical > approach to science. I probably seem like one of the "silly Europeans" > that goes too far against (GOF) science sometimes, but I'd subscribe > to your words. > > Ian > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
