Hi DMB, I don't mind talking "about" isms if we are discussing their content intelligently, as opposed to talking in the sloppy language of the isms themselves - just a pragmatic feeling that there are too many snags to doing that here, to achieve much. But we agree these are important topics that "should" be discussed intelligently.
Like here again you rhetorically accuse me of "sloppy thinking" & "making a mess" - ad hominem. An opinion your entitled to, your style, but no valid argument. So to the meat. Yes "faith" was a provocative choice of word - it worked, it always does push your buttons ;-) But you actually re-state my point .... the basis of most belief (even scientific) has a tradition, a social / cultural angle - the reason for believing in which is "difficult" to rationalise in a closed & consistent objective, scientific way. (I've written a lot about this before here and elsewhere - my thinking is far from sloppy, but my expression in this knock-about e-mail environment invariably is, just like yours is.) Anyway we both believe that the MoQ addresses how "the social level stands between intellect and the senses" ... we should be addressing detail of that how, rather than inventing disagreement. I'm happy to stop provoking you with "faith" if we are in fact agreeing that even science has a "social level tradition in its belief". (I am just in the habit of using "faith" as short-hand for that - to provoke sleep-walking scientists. Sorry.) And yes, "Cui Bono"is a tried and tested viewpoint .... I've not responded to Chris' specific "knowledge sake" point yet - but I'm just about to. Ian On 7/15/08, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ian said to Chris: > Yes any "organised" pursuit of knowledge is a social pattern, founded on > faith in a tradition - like science, (even more so if it is used as the basis > of a form of governance). Which is why the "knowledge for knowledge sake" > idea is interesting. Expand on that - and leave the "isms" out for now ;-) - > they just get in the way. > > dmb says: > I already expressed my disagreement with the notion that "isms" just get in > the way of a good conversation. (I think sloppy thinking and hardened beliefs > are the things to worry about.) Rather than repeat that, I'd like to disagree > with the other part this time. I wanna disagree with the idea that science is > a faith-based tradition on the social level. I think you are being extremely > unhelpful here by introducing confusing ambiguities where none exist. Your > attempts at being diplomatic and playing things down the middle are probably > well-intentioned but, dude, you're just making a big mess. > > If you'll take a look at the explanation Arlo recently offered to Marsha on > this point, I think you'll see what I mean. Yes, Pirsig attacks the idea of > scientific objectivity and points out that all our intellectual descriptions > are culturally derived but you've apparently construed this to mean that our > intellectual descriptions are on social level. (The culture is made up of > both social and intellectual values, by the way.) Apparently, you assume that > since science is a collaborative effort that depends on institutions it must > be social. Yikes. And because it has a history and development, it must be > based on "tradition". Yikes. Calling it faith takes the cake. Double yikes. > That's just confused and that confusion shows why its such a bad idea to > distinguish the social and intellectual in terms of collectivity and > individuality. (All patterns at all levels have both features. It has been a > while so I will challenge you - or anyone who cares to try - to think of any > thing in the known universe that is not both an individual entity and part of > a larger collective group or system. I seriously wonder if you can even > imagine a fictional thing that is only one or the other.) > > Pirsig's rejection of the myth of objectivity does not demote science to the > social level, it simply insists that there is no direct connection between > biological level and the intellectual level, which simply means objective > reality does not come to us through the eyes. The social level stand between > and determines what we see and what we look for. This is consistent with > Pirsig's attack on sensory empiricism, his comments on the Cleveland Harbor > effect, the SOM-as-a-pair-of-glasses analogy, etc.. One also hears this idea > from other philosophers. The attack on the myth of the given and the > rejection of the correspondence theory of truth (as Matt K. will tell you) > are essentially the same argument. > > And when I say that misunderstanding this point "adds confusion" and that its > "extremely unhelpful" to assert that science is social, that's the polite way > to put it. > > One of the main complaints about objectivity and the scientific worldview is > that it makes morals and values into something less than real, something that > only exists in your head, as arbitrary conventions we've inherited > unwillingly. The MOQ objects to this, of course, which is only consistent > with his assertion that the social level is stands between intellect and the > senses. But the MOQ doesn't reject science or demote intellect because of > that. It accepts scientific data even while it might interpret it > differently. It expands rather than rejects empiricism. It re-asserts the > intellectual level as distinctly different to tradition even as it rejects > the myth of independence. In short, I think you've forgotten or glossed over > some very important stuff, Ian. > > Christoffer's assertion that the intellectual level is about "knowledge for > the sake of knowledge" is much less objectionable but I'm still going to > disagree a little bit. I think it expresses a sense of autonomy which is > quite consistent with Pirsig's assertion that the levels are not continuous, > that they are discrete. But then there is the pragmatic aspect of the MOQ, > which says that knowledge exists not for its own sake but to improve the > quality of our lives, to guide future action and generally to make the world > a better place. > > I use a handy and simple little method. Maybe it'll work for you too. If you > want to know whether a thing is social or intellectual just ask yourself a > question; what does it serve? If it holds concepts and ideas together, its > probably intellectual. If it holds society together, its probably social. > Trouble creeps in where a thing is more or less both at the same time, but > that'll just be a slightly more complicated version of the same simple > operation. Of course its important to remember that, by definition, anything > intellectual will depend on all the levels below it, including the social > level. So you might want to think of it in terms of shooting for the moon. > You know, at what point does the thing fall short of going all the way. I've > also seen folks get tangled up by confusing our intellectual descriptions of > things and the things described. But the method is simple. Its based on the > notion that the levels are different in their purposes and goals. Wars don't > hold ideas together, but logic and intellectual honesty do, for example. > These things represent different levels of morality, different values. Two > plus two equals four no matter what religion you are and you don't have to be > patriotic to obey the law of gravity. Its that sort of thing. When you think > about it in a certain way, the rights and freedoms named as intellectual > values in LILA aren't really about protecting the rights of the individual. > These rights supposed to be enjoyed by all of us, to ensure that we are all > equal under the law, and the stated purpose of government is to secure these > rights. So the principle is "collective" in several ways that really, really > matter. But more than that, what these rights do in protect the freedom of > the intellect itself. And this in turn protects the ongoing process of > evolution, of life. So if we ask "what does it serve", freedom of speech is > pretty clearly of intellectual value. People use the law to publish porn, > which i think is kinda stupid cause porn isn't "speech" or "expression" so > much as it is a biological pleasure, but the principle itself is not. > > Thanks. > dmb > > _________________________________________________________________ > It's a talkathon – but it's not just talk. > http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk > 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/
