A personal note on critical reading:
My digests in this thread may have given the impression that I am unduly
critical of Pirsig's views on the role of objectivity in advancing knowledge.
That was not my intention and this note is an attempt to clarify my position.
When critically reading books like Z&AMM and Lila one should try to avoid
considering isolated paragraphs as 'parts' but to attempt to consider them as
'components' of a whole or unity, conformed by the books and opinions that the
writer may have expressed elsewhere.
Taken as isolated, paragraphs like:
"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."
"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"
may appear as a gross distortion of subject-object Science and nothing
wrong in trying to straighten it. Objectivity in Science has proved itself as
a right attitude for enquiry into the physical world and is responsible, in no
small part, for the colossal (no other word for it) achievements of Science in
the last hundred years. But to infer from this successful application of the
S/O distinction, that it is is the best approach for enquiring into Everything
is totally unwarranted. In my reading of Pirsig's books it looks like
paragraphs like the above and others of the sort represent a reaction against
that unwarranted extension to other fields of enquiry, in particular the
so-called "Social Sciences".
An objective consideration of phenomena observed in, say, polymer
solutions, appears to be the proper attitude when doing scientific research
and, as said, has proved itself as such. But to think that this is also the
proper and only attitude when considering 'phenomena' in school children's
behaviour or the mores of Amazonian tribes is groundless thinking.
Reading about Pirsig's indignation about the turn taken by American
Anthropology under the influence of Boas and his disciples his attacks on the
role of objectivity in Science are seen in another light. Perhaps he
over-generalises and his wording is too strong, but this could be forgiven in
writers coming out against what they consider threatening trends in their
culture; carefully worded sentences do not easily impact the public at large
which is what the writer may intend.
"The trouble with the objective approach --Dusenberry said-- is that
you don't learn much that way"
which taken as isolated, out of context, might look ludicrous because in
Science we have learnt quite a lot 'that way' . But Dusenberry wasn't talking
about Chemistry or Biology, he was talking about Anthropology and in this he
seemed to be right indeed. Not only in Anthropology, but also in Sociology or
Psychology and the rest of the "Social Sciences", to use Dusenberry's wording,
we "haven't learnt much" and the objective approach is in no small measure
responsible for the present muddle in those fields.
One cannot, of course, be sure that, by considering the Observer as
part of a system instead of out of it, those disciplines may have done more
progress. However, looking in retrospect, what we have learnt in, say,
Psychology from the 'objective' study of behaviour of white mice in controlled
laboratory conditions is insignificant compared to what we learnt from such
'unscientific' approaches as those of Freud or Jung. (And similar examples
abound).
I cannot claim to be familiar with the American scene but, from what
I've been told, the trend that Pirsig attempted to chastise has entrenched
itself firmly in academic institutions and especially so during the present
Administration. Studies such as those of O.Lewis on the Culture of Poverty
would have been dismissed today as not being 'scientific' enough and, surely,
old C. Castaneda would be condemned to teach in an out of the way prep school.
Viewed in the context of the whole, objectivity is indeed objectionable
when considered as the only, exclusive, attitude in learning about man in
society but, because of the role it has played in other fields of enquiry, it
doesn't deserve to be thrown overboard.
---------------------------------
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/
