Platt wrote in Jan. 5:-
S/O is immoral because it doesn't acknowledge the existence of universal
moral values, as Pirsig explains:
"But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say that
science, the intellectual pattern that has 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.
"Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time in
history, was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run society
with?" (Lila, 22)
The problem with Western culture is "Nothing is right and nothing is
wrong." You see it most prominently in the philosophy dominating the
academic elite -- relativism and its sister, multiculturism.
========
Platt: quite a challenge to discuss yours and Pirsig's views above.
Challenging because they raise a large number of subjects that merit discussion
and it would be difficult to tackle them all in depth. Challenging especially
for me because I consider myself an acute case of what Brennan calls Moral
Perplexity (See his "The Open Texture of Moral Concepts") and I find Morality a
very slippery matter. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try for, all its worth:
You start by saying: "S/O is immoral because it doesn't acknowledge the
existence of universal moral values." and substantiate your opinion on some of
Pirsig's, which I'll try to discuss in the order they appear.
" But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say that
science, the intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take over
society, has a defect in it."
I find this a bit of an exaggeration. If any group of persons or
institutions ever appointed Science to take over society, their proposal seems
to have been largely unheeded. It may be right to say that, in contemporary
Western societies, Science is more prestigious than ever before in our history;
it could be expected then that the opinion of scientists and the "scientific
points of view" play an important role in how those societies are run. This
expectation, if any ever entertained it, has not been fulfilled at all. The
opinions of scientists about interpersonal relations and societies at large,
are as wise as the ones of the "common man in the street". Most scientists are
aware of this and refrain from using their 'prestige' to back up their opinions
in day-to-day matters.
Besides, although Science is widely respected and admired nowadays,
scientists are nowhere near the Top of the League. Even in the USA, a country
that can be justly proud of its achievements in Science, the political opinions
of scientists seem to carry little weight. A case in point: in the present
presidential race, the various candidates try to adorn themselves with the
support of famous footballers, cinema stars and TV entertainers; scientists
don't seem to be much of an asset for them. Surely this must be because, in the
eyes of the electorate (society?), the opinion of entertainers about how a
country should be run, carries far more weight than those of, say, a Nobel
Prize laureate in Physics or Biology.
If any intellectual pattern has 'taken over society' nowadays it must be
that of politicians and of executives of multinationals, which seem to work
together in remarkable harmony in most Western (and many Eastern) countries. I
have no idea how to describe their intellectual pattern, but it is certainly
not at all closer to that of Science.
The defect of Science: "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."
If Science had taken over societies that could be considered a defect
because you'd expect, from whoever or whatever runs a society, to make
provision for morals.
Since that is not the case I hardly think that this could be called a defect.
True, Science makes no provision for morals, nor for art, nor for religion and
many others; I wouldn't call it a defect, not anymore than saying that not
making provisions for morals is a defect of Art, nor that it is a defect of
Religion not making provisions for Science.
Science is not primarily concerned with facts; its main concern is
with theories; new facts are a concern insofar as, when confronted with
existing theories, better ones may be formulated. In other language, scientists
main concern is 'weaving' various intellectual patterns; patterns that are
essentially dynamic and that (hopefully) will some day merge into one. It might
be said that a theory is primarily a form of insight, i.e. a way of looking at
the world, and not a form of knowledge of how the world is (David Bohm).
"From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a
completely purposeless, valueless place."
The first part of the sentence, that of the world being purposeless in
the eyes of Science, should be, perhaps, rephrased. Science has no tools to
answer questions such as What is the purpose of the World?-- Why was the
world created?(or even whether it was created or not). IMHO neither can
Philosophy for that matter. Only Religion addresses itself to such questions
and provides clear cut answers.
The second part though, that is that, in the eyes of Science, this world is
"a valueless place", is questionable. But this I'd better leave for a following
Post since the question of Values and Science is an intricate one. I am also
leaving for later the central question "Is Science Immoral?". Not that I am
evading the question, only that I thought of commenting first on the arguments
on which your proposition is based.
---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
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/
