Jorge > Chris writes: > > ... but I'd like to start with criticising the last > part of > the post. The MOQ can't "leave sciense out" because it > is a metaphysics, and > thus e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g has to be incorporated in it. > If something is left > out, it doesn't work. But I think we can all quite > easily agree on this. > > Jorge: Well, I, for one, don't easily agree on that. > My approach, as an outsider, to the relation between > Science and the MOQ is basically of common sense or > garden-pragmatism. As I said in my last Post: > > " ?why not leave Science alone for the time being? > Perhaps later on, when the MOQ is more firmly > established as a Metaphysics, the time would arrive to > change Science's numerous shortcomings" > > Emphasis on "for the time being"?until "the MOQ is > more firmly established as a Metaphysics".In the > meantime, plenty to do instead of clallenging Science.
Chris: But we aren't "challenging science" we are challenging everything. Science is built upon the SOM, and as the MOQ replaces the SOM, Science can never be left out. > I get the impression (just an impression) from > frequent derogatory comments on Science in this Forum > (and also from selected quotes of Pirsig's books) that > Science is looked as a sheep gone stray that needs to > be steered back to the flock by the MOQ. You yourself > sums it up as: > > " Science doesn't really have direction or meaning, to > sum up large parts of ZMM in one sentence" > > Poor Science?adrift, with no direction or meaning. > > What if I were to say that Science in the last century > has led humanity along an incredible journey of > discovery? A journey towards a far better > understanding of the world around us? Wouldn't you > call that "direction"? How have other fields of > creativity fared in that same peiod? Chris: A great journey indeed. But a snowball journey. It started, and then it just kept/keeps going. I am one of those that now doesn't see science as evil or whatever, but I see that without direction this snowball might drag all of humanity into a "dreadful night". see comment below. > As to "meaning"?I really don't know what is the > meaning of Science, but neither what is the "meaning" > of Art, Philosophy or Religion. I presume that each of > them, in its own particular way, helps human beings in > finding meanings from their experienced world. > > But that was just "muddling through", as you say. > Coming back to my former point: the relation between > Science and the MOQ, if viewed as a contest or > conflict, appears like a David and Goliath one. David > challenged Goliath he was pretty sure that God was on > his side, a belief I gather the MOQ does not have. Perhaps it has Quality =P > Ever since I read Z&AMM I've been intrigued about > why Pirsig picked upon Science as a foremost example > of what's wrong with our culture. Not that Science is > free of flaws and shortcomings, most scientists are > well aware of them. But, why not other areas where we > are faring much worse? Man-to-man relations and > society's ills to quote just two of the most prominent > ones. Chris: Because science is the religion of our time, and claims to be able to fix this. Science (SOM rituals) have never understood the humanities though, because science always becomes crippled when there isn't a subject with predictable patterns to study. IMO Chris 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/
