Ian said:For me this just further illustrates that there is very little to
distinguish social and intellectual level patterns. DMB said:When the Bush
administration supresses scientific data for political and financial reasons,
is that just a clash of equal philosophies? Are we really powerless to discern
the difference or see patterns? Ron said:no but the lines aren't as exactly
clear as you seem to think they are. Matt:What Ian was pointing to is the fact
that it is difficult to split the so-called intellectual level from the
so-called social level while saying all the things Pirsig says about both
level-splitting and the levels themselves. DMB was arguing for the utility of
the distinction based on its ability to distinguish a certain phenomena. Ron
was muddying DMB's phenomena by illustrating other facets of the phenomena. I
think Ian is right, but would put the point that it isn't philosophically
tenable when writing up a evolutionary schematic to distinguish the two as
Pirsig did (one reason: symbol manipulation is too embedded in sociability). I
think DMB is right that there is a difference between the science community and
the Bush administration, but calling it a clash of philosophies at all would be
a mistake. DMB (I think) is mocking the notion that the Bush administration
has a philosophy, which is something like the idea that once you expose the
untenability of a hardline distinction between social/intellectual (or
philosophy/ideology), you are left in cultural relativism (the defeat of which,
thus producing the mock, is part of the impetus behind Pirsig's levels).
However, a philosophy could certainly be drawn up for the neocons, and what it
produces is a vision of life very different than the one embodied by
science-believing folks. The notion of equality is misplaced, but calling it a
fight between two forms of life is not, and in that battle saying one is bereft
of the power of reason misunderstands where the battle must (in part) be
fought. Which is what I take Ron and Ian to be saying. The main point that
Ian, Ron, and I can certainly agree on, that DMB thinks we are abdicating, is
that there are differences and patterns that are discernable. If Pirsig is to
be believed, we could not help but discern differences and patterns. No one
could deny it without seeming to deny their own existence (which would be a
very contrarian attitude). What Ian, Ron, and I are saying is more like, we
are seeing slightly different patterns and differences than DMB is, or would
like to call the same patterns something different (which is kinda' the same as
saying they are slightly different). For instance, rather than hard-splitting
culture up into two, social and intellectual, I would prefer to split culture
up pluralistically, creating as many discernable sectors and areas as we need
to deal with particular problems (e.g., distinguishing between the scientific
and political sectors). Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble
challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
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/
