Hi Bo, A brilliant recounting of the history and nature of the intellectual level. Many thanks.
Only one small bone to pick. You assert "I know of no truth that's not objective --." I presume your answer is limited by the context of Jorge's question because it appears you omit Pirsig's concept of truth -- like "paintings in an art gallery" -- showing that the S/O split is actually superseded by DQ/SQ. Truth, no matter how arrived at, is first and foremost a value, like goodness and beauty. That the ideology of science largely ignores these ultimate meanings accounts for much of the current moral decay. Regards, Platt > 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/ 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/
