At 01:14 AM 2/20/2009, you wrote:
On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:28:28 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
Hmmm. If I'm correct, and science is in the room, let me add a word or two.
The MoQ, for me, is a world-view to which science is
subordinate. Science is a subject/object subset of the MoQ
world-view and cannot be used to evaluate or explain it
I am new to this post so treat this accordingly. I have seen the
term "science" used as though it were somehow different from what is
being discussed in metaphysics. I have a doctorate of PHILOSOPHY,
specializing in the biological sciences. Recently I have become
interested in the science of metaphysics. I have always been a fan
of Pirsig for the entertainment he has provided me (and I mean that
with the highest regard), and read the archives of MoQ with enjoyment.
The "science" you appear to be talking about is that which appears
to be described by the abstract concept of measurement. That
"science" is the labeling and categorization of experiences in a way
to provide meaning that can be communicated (shared) in a group
setting. It is no different from the metaphysics of MoQ, which does
the same thing. Both are as real or subjective as each other. The
"hard sciences" have been able to continually create new labels
(names) for experiences more successfully than metaphysics. It is
possible that discussions in metaphysics will evolve to a much
better language, such as sanskrit, with the creation of new terms,
in order to break out of the limited communication, for such
experiences, provided by English. It would be nice to not be
talking around the subject as much.
Speaking of evolving, a good example of the use of "science" in
metaphysics can be seen with Pirsig's use of the term
evolution. Evolution was a theory from the 19th century which was
used to describe the dynamic interaction of structural biology with
the "environment", which really is a description of nature dancing
with itself. This concept has been expanded to depict a perceived
directional movement from "lower" to "higher" (or better quality),
resulting in many sociological justifications for behavior, among
other misuses . Stretching this term in such a way causes it to
lose meaning, and deliver a poorly defined concept.. However, if
the theory of evolution is applied to metaphysics, for whatever
reason, it implies that it is testable, meaning reproducible and of
some predictability. If such scrutiny is deemed not applicable to
metaphysics, then a different term should be used. If evolution is
used to describe the movement of simple to complex then we are
talking about an observation which has no real meaning.
Nature dancing with herself? This sounds good.
Labeling and categorization, in any field, for the purposes of
sharing experiences with a group consciousness, is simply just that,
which is my interpretation of how Pirsig views language. Such is
the language of science which is no different from the language of
metaphysics.
I certainly do not feel that one is more "real" than the other.
And, ultimately, neither do I.
"While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns.
Kill them completely
And then follow Dynamic Quality
And morality will be served."
(LILA, Chapter 32)
But I do think questions of the metaphysical kind are hot. - Marsha
WillBlake2
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
(William Blake)
Nice to meet you WillBlake2.
Marsha
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
