Hi Jorge
13 March you wrote:
>Jorge: I'm sorry that I'll abuse your patience even more but, this >and >
>following answers left me as puzzled as before.
My pleasure.
> You retort with another question "can Science go on working even if
> the metaphysical rug is pulled from under it?" And your answer is
> yes, it can. Problem is (and that's why I must abuse your patience)
> I don't understand enough neither your question nor your answer.
> You assume that Science is working over a certain metaphysical rug.
> I am not aware that there is or was a metaphysical rug on which
> Science rests. If by that rug you mean a SOM, I'd say that most
> scientists are and have been working without accepting such
> Metaphysics. Actually, most are unawares that such a thing as SOM
> was ever invented.
I've been laboring over this a while Jorge and there is no way without
beginning with the start. You know the weak and strong interpretation
of Quantum Physics? There is something alike it regarding the MOQ
and I see Pirsig's (that of the MOQ an adjustment of the intellectual
level) as the "weak" one, while the SOL (that of the SOM being the
intellectual level itself) as the "strong" (nothing weak/strong-minded
about it)
Then according to the SOL interpretation (which I find in ZAMM and
also in LILA, but rejected in Lila's Child and again more or less
admitted to in a later letter) our Western culture (its emergence
described in ZAMM as the coming of SOM) is the emergence of the
intellectual level and consequently, those who don't know the MOQ
don't know that their base is SOM - scientists no wiser than the rest.
Because each level's purpose is to control the lower level (its value
becoming the upper's evil) intellect's enemy is the social level and
as no level knows the Quality context, intellect just sees itself as
reason (objectivity) emerging from the old mythological superstitious
past (the latter becoming subjective in this process). This process
culminated with the age of enlightenment and the various national
constitutions being based on reason and the human rights/worth
emanating from reason.
The doctrine of scientific disconnection from social
morals goes all the way back to the ancient Greek belief
that thought is independent of society, that it stands
alone, born without parents. Ancient Greeks such as
Socrates and Pythagoras paved the way for the
fundamental principle behind science: that truth stands
independently of social opinion. It is to be determined by
direct observation and experiment, not by hearsay. (LILA)
This "objectivity over subjectivity" cause seemed invincible, but like
all levels intellect also began spawning more complex variants of
itself and the seventeenth century empiricist started to question the
"objectivity of objectivity". The world out there - that the subject
observed - vanished partly, all qualities were created by the senses
of the subject, then Kant who planned to save philosophy from this
self- devouring "pure reason" but merely ended up with an even more
ineffable reality (Das Ding an Sich) but science as intellect's spear-
point seemed unaffected, through the eighteenth century it made great
progress, philosophy - once science itself - had become idle
speculation, not having any impact on the practical work, nature was
giving up more and more of its secrets .
OK to cut it short, only with Relativity did some philosophical
implications start to dawn on physics (the most fundamental branch)
and with Quantum Mech. the erosion of the objective reality out there
was complete. Yet the SOM was by now so ingrained that although its
"O" part disintegrated no scientist returned to social level's value
of existence a god/force-run realm)* reality was merely regarded as
"subjective" i.e. that an experiment was dependent upon the onlooker.
*) Christendom was fundamentally altered by intellect, even if
Einstein for example believed in God, the world and its qualities were
firmly set.
Jorge:
> That was behind my second question: if a scientist were to adopt SOM
> will only then be in conflict with the MOQ?
The MOQ is no mere adjustment, it's an upheaval and there a million
nuances to this, but the idea is that no scientist knows any SOM or
cares about philosophy, he/she works with finding the patterns of all
fields of existence, even the "subjective" ones like in psychology,
psychiatry. Look to our "Krimel" who undaunted drones on from the
SOM premises, thinking the MOQ is some Jehovah Witness or
Scientolgy-like new age thing.
> You say moreover that Science can go on (in spite of said affair of
> metaphysical rug) and, in practice goes on, although the S/O as M
> (as reality really is) is already weakened. I wouldn't say that the
> phrase "as reality really is" has much to do with Science as a
> method of enquiry; it looks to me more of a phrase from some
> philosophical school or other.
Exactly.
Jorge:
> When scientific work will be considered of "the highest static
> value" I hope public funding of Science goes up accordingly. Jokes
> apart, it is worth mentioning that said undermining of the S/O
> distinction, was done mostly by scientists themselves.
Even more exact.
> If, as you propose, a DQ/SQ split will not diminish the S/O
> distinction then, I take it, you think that it will be "business as
> usual" in Science and we could go on keeping striving for maximum
> objectivity in our observations?
Yes, yes and yes again.
> Jorge: there you lost me. Does SOL contend that truth
> and objectivity are intrinsically linked? Or that
> objectivity is a necessary condition for truth? Could
> you please elaborate on this?
I wish I could start on a new essay, but I'm reeling. Truth and
objectivity is the same, I know of no truth that's not objective -
unless one reverts to SOM's of looking upon the old myths as "their
form for reason". The real question is: Is there an intrinsic
difference between subjectivity and objectivity (mind and matter)?
The MOQ says that the fundamental "fault" is the DQ/SQ one thus it
follows that intellect's S/O divide isn't fundamental yet nevertheless
intellect's postulating such a chasm has brought us modernity.
Jorge:
> But, as I've said in other posts, so-called scientific objectivity
> is eminently social. Something is accepted or not as depending on
> whether there is or not (peer) consensus about it. I do hope you
> don't consider that an example of social bigotry, do you?
This your use of social isn't the social LEVEL, just what is commonly
accepted in an intellect-steeped culture.
It's been a pleasure Jorge, but a bit like Pirsig's about "having to
resolve a metaphysical dispute at the end of each sentence.
Yours sincerely
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/
