Hi Jorge, A most thoughtful post. Thanks for tackling some basic issues of the MOQ. The reluctance of many here to discuss the moral implications of Pirsig's work puzzles me. It's refreshing to read your excellent thoughts on the subject.
> 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. I think you may be underestimating the influence of scientific thinking -- the subject-object assumption -- on Western culture. Nothing seems more "real" to us than the separation of what goes on inside our heads and the world "out there." We look at the world, as Pirsig put it, through subject- object spectacles, and build our language to reflect what we think see. Generally we hold in high esteem "objective truth," unsullied by prejudice, bias and moral judgment. This emanates directly from the scientific mindset and forms the basis for "critical thinking" so esteemed in academic circles. > 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. Good point. Pirsig spends some time describing the influence of celebrities on society, calling it " ,,, an organizing force of the whole social level of evolution." (Lila, 20). Because politics is essentially a social level phenomenon, celebrity influence is to be expected. While scientists have little public celebrity influence compared to Oprah, they play a central role behind the scenes in such politically-charged matters as economics, energy, and national defense. Not so behind-the-scenes is the current politics of "global warming" whose advocates constantly refer to "scientific consensus" as if that somehow constitutes absolute proof. > 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. Politicians representing the intellectual level? That strikes me as an oxymoron. Corporations rely on scientific thinking to create, produce, and distribute their products and services. Politicians rely on scientific polling to gauge the popularity of their initiatives. The two sides get together for mutual benefit -- the politicians to acquire financial support, the executives to dampen the politicians' interference in their business. The subject-object intellectual pattern, however, tends to dominate society, regardless of whatever special interest group we focus on. (As an aside, it amuses me that neither politicians nor government bureaucrates consider themselves to be a special interest groups.) > 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. It's not so much that science has taken over societies but that scientific subject-object thinking has. As Pirsig writes in Chap. 22 of Lila: "When people asked, 'If no culture, including a Victorian culture, can say what is right and what is wrong, then how can we ever know what is right and what is wrong?' the answer was, 'That's easy. Intellectuals will tell you. Intellectuals, unlike members of studiable cultures, know what they're talking and writing about, because what they say isn't culturally relative. What they say is absolute. This is because intellectuals follow science, which is objective. An objective observer does not have relative opinions because he is nowhere within the world he observes.' " > 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). I disagree. Theories are indeed important in science. But without facts to test the theories, the theories are useless. The two go together like subjects and objects -- theories being subjective, facts objective. > "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. We know that in Western society today religion is considered low brow "yelping about God" by the majority, especially the majority of self- described intellectuals. As for philosophy, however, the MOQ makes a good case for the reality of purpose in the world -- the impulse to betterness represented by Dynamic Quality. > 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. Good idea. We've already bitten off a lot to chew on. Hopefully what we've begun will encourage others to join in. If morality isn't the main subject of the MOQ I don't know what is. Regards, 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/
