Dear All I've been busy with a show of my paintings in town (Bodö) and haven't been able to respond to the posts in this thread (the "mystic" one I had prepared earlier) Anyway there seems to be a lot of interesting inputs, particularly from Platt, Ron and Spirit, Steve however has got hung up in this pesky 5th level issue, possibly my fault from earlier on. When I've studied it all, I'll try to sum things up.
Soon Bo . On 10 Dec 2007 at 21:10, Platt Holden wrote: > Hi David M, > > [DM] > > It is correct that SOM stops us discussing and exploring our > > values because values are thrown out of an ungrounded > > objective approach to knowledge (ungrounded in human > > experience). > > [Platt] > Bo will have his own answer, but I go by what Pirsig wrote: > > [Pirsig] > "But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say that > science, the intellectual pattern that bas been appointed to take over > society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science > has no provision for morals. Subject-object science is only concerned > with facts. Morals have no objective reality. You can look through a > microscope or telescope or oscilloscope for the rest of your life and > you will never find a single moral. There aren't any there. They are > all in your head. They exist only in your imagination. > > "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a > completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in > anything. Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just > functions, like machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with being > lazy, nothing morally wrong with lying, with theft, with suicide, with > murder, with genocide. There is nothing morally wrong because there > are no morals, just functions." (Lila, 22) > > [DM] > > Of course, SOM and secularism despite their attempt not > > to talk about values are full of values. Many very good values > > in fact such as individualism and freedom from over heavy > > social constraints. > > [Platt] > In the U.S. these values came from the Founding Fathers who were > influenced by the Enlightenment and Christian protestantism. But yes, > there's no escape from values. Science values its methods and, as > Pirsig noted, would frown on someone who faked scientific data. > > [DM] > > Where I have a problem with SOM grounded > > science and secularism is that they dress up these values (many of > > which are good values) as valueless objective knowledge. People then > > make all kinds of truth claims against each other, where is reality > > their differences are due to different values. > > > > Interestingly, Charles Taylor and Richard Rorty talk about these > > very issues regarding the value-ladenness of many so-called truth > > claims. > > [Platt] > Can you give some examples of specific values that are dressed up as > "objective knowledge?" I'm having a hard time imagining them. Truth > as defined by Rorty and others in the postmodernist camp is considered > to be relative to culture or a power play, except, incoherently, the > truth of their own privileged stance. Not many are buying their > self-falsifying claims these days except a few humanities academics. > Truth may have "objective value" in that truth as a general concept > cannot be denied without asserting a truth, just as values cannot be > denied without asserting a value. But, I await your comments. > > Platt > 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/
