On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 1:29 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
> > John shared a quote that opposes humanism: > "Man is no longer to be the measure of all things, the centre of the > universe. He has been measured and found to be an undistinguished bit of > matter, different in no essential way from bacteria, stones and trees. His > goals and purposes, his egocentric notions of past, present and future; his > faith in his power to predict and through prediction to control his destiny > - all these are called into question, considered irrelevant, or deemed > trivial." > > > dmb says: > This would be a pretty good example of reductionism. Man is essentially the > same as stones, trees and bugs. His goals and purposes are irrelevant. This > is exactly the kind of thing the MOQ criticizes for it's alienating effects. > This is flatland objectivity wherein all things are essentially the same > with no qualitative differences. By contrast, the MOQ says that there is an > evolutionary hierarchy such that the higher forms emerge from the lower > levels and need those lower levels in order to be, but that they cannot be > explained or described properly in terms of the forms they emerged from. > [John] The functional definition of reductionism I would use is Krimel's: the attempt to explain phenomena in terms of its necessary causes. I pointed out to him, and now to you as well, that such a task is a fool's errand exactly along the lines of finding an end to hypothesisizing a given phenemone. Eventually the necessary causes for any given phenomena are/is the entire cosmos. I do agree that man is "more" than stones, trees and bugs, but this "moreness" is mainly in his head. My biggest problem with Humanism is the way it has been promulgated in the classrooms of America for some time with no debate, no second guessing and no humility at all. We are the stupendous humans who have intellectually figured out everything. Blah blah blah the universe is an object 6 billion years old and we know this because our wonderful brains figured it all out. Never mind the fact that being objective about the universe is another fool's errand. The biggest problem I have with the MoQ is the way some take it's moral teaching about the hierarchy of levels and use that to glorify the man at the apex. A similar concern for a deep ecology aficianado. [dmb] I'd also point out that the MOQ takes "man to be the measure of all things" not as a claim about Man's centrality in the universe but rather serves as a limit to what we can know. [John] With that caveat, I'll buy it. Lord knows we need limits. [dmb] > > You came to the table here talking about Royce and art and so I figured you > were at least in the neighborhood, philosophically speaking. But the > distance between you and the MOQ seems to expand with every post you write. > Not to mention the problem with seeing Pirsig as a reactionary. Yikes. You > thought he was a reactionary and you still liked him? Double yikes! > Takes all kinds, I guess. > [John] Well Dave, I did say, "If that's not reactionary, then I don't know the meaning of the term" and then you said reactionary meant a right winger type of person. So I conclude that I really didn't know the meaning of the term. So I do what any self-respecting dotcommie netizen does, I look it up: *Reactionary* (also *reactionist*) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state (the status quo ante <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_ante>) and opposes changes in society it deems harmful. The term originated in the French Revolution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution>, to denote the counter-revolutionaries<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-revolutionary> who wanted to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy> *Ancien Régime <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancien_R%C3%A9gime>*. In the nineteenth century, the term *reactionism* denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism> and aristocratic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy> privilege against industrialism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialism>, republicanism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism>,liberalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism> and socialism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism>. Today the term is largely used pejoratively <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejoratively> to refer to ideas that are considered backwards, outdated and opposed to progress. So you were wrong about it having a right-wing meaning. Was I wrong about Pirsig? In ZAMM Does Pirsig oppose changes in society he deems harmful? Does Pirsig seek a return to a previous state (good old American gumption)? Perhaps the point I made was debatable, but it wasn't quite so easily dismissable. ------------ Self is simply Choice, so choose good ------------ 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/
