Hello Mary --
On 1/24 at 2:31 PM you quoted portions of Baggini's interview with Pirsig,
adding this comment:
The thing is, science is not setup properly to answer the "whys".
It cannot do it and never will. This is Pirsig's point. The
metaphysical underpinning for all of science is lacking the ability
to do so. SOM LACKS THE ABILITY TO ANSWER THE
"WHYS". If you base your world-view on SOM, then value is
just "whatever you like". It has no solid meaning and cannot be
measured in a laboratory. To try to use science to answer "why"
will, if taken to its logical conclusion, result in his last sentence:
"he will find himself drifting eventually toward the solutions
arrived at by the Metaphysics of Quality."
Science draws conclusions from empirical investigation, controlled
experimentation, and confirmation of the results by universal replication of
the experiments. The methodology is designed to answer "what" the
phenomenon is and what are its causes (i.e., "how" it occurs, based on
causal reasoning.) It is not designed to answer "why?" or to discover the
purpose or meaning of a phenomenon in terms of an ultimate cause or source
(teleology).
Pirsig's assertion that a biologist asked to define the meaning of "survival
of the fittist" in scientific terms "will give up or...come up with nonsense
or... find himself drifting eventually toward the solutions arrived at by
the Metaphysics of Quality," is somewhat self-serving on the author's part.
Most likely, rather than "come up with nonsense", the biologist will develop
a hypothesis to explain the biological advantage of "fitness" in
evolutionary terms. I see no evidence that failure to either confirm the
cause or theorize the phenomenon will necessarily lead the investigator to
conclusions "arrived at by the Metaphysics of Quality."
But I was puzzled by what seemed to me an ingenuous comment: "If you base
your world-view on SOM, then value is just 'whatever you like'." I assume
you are the same Mary who ends evey post with the axiom "The most important
thing you will ever make is a realization." Isn't "what you like" your
realization of value? Indeed, how can we know value other than as a
realization? Value-sensibility, as I have defined it, IS primary
realization. While this may be the SOM view, it also happens to be the
perspective of human beings living in and interacting with a physical world.
Sometimes I think the Pirsigians are led to believe that Value exists
independently of subjective sensibility or experience. Since epistemology
does not support such a concept, why should a philosophy? As I have
repeatedly said, unrealized Value is an oxymoron.
Best regards,
Ham
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/
