On 2/1/10 10:00 PM, "John Carl" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip> Further, Royce constantly cites the scientific community as an example of true community, that is, one endlessly seeking for common agreement. With such a view of science Royce does not easily fall prey to the errors of either the critics of science and technology or the liberals, both of whom identify science with a particular time or view. The critics thus blame science for all the present social ills while ignoring humans' task to render science and technology as servants of humankind and society and the common good. The liberals conflate the accomplishments of science and technology with laissez-faire capitalism. In understanding science as a social mode of inquiry, and technology as a human mode of productive activity, Royce is able to see technology as "social" and "political", open to critical questions of ends pursued." Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, Genuine Individuals and Genuine Communities See, that's the overthrow of SOM right there. Science is itself an object of inquiry, subject to higher values. This is what Pirsig was on about and what has been going on in our world for some time. A WAR of values, my friends. Right here in River City. woo hoo! Hi John and all, We have a difference of opinion about evolution. Pirsig proposes four levels: inorganic, organic, social, intellectual for evolution. Esoteric literature proposes seven levels using the musical scale as a template with differing values between levels whole steps and half steps. I have read and agree with some of your comments on the practices of some esoteric societies, and, I myself would like to pick up some stones and throw them, but the use of the musical scale as a model for evolution is imho inspired. Evolution to a social level from an organic level as Pirsig proposed is problematic as the distinction between instinct and consciousness is blurred between mice and men. Imho I would like to see evolution to individual conscious beings like Adam and Eve to occur before evolution to a family structure. This seems to properly distinguish a DQ emotional level of consciousness from a DQ instinctive evolution. Instinctive and conscious behaviors have differing origins. For the social level to evolve directly from the organic level seems illogical. A human family acts differently from an anthill. Using evolution to propose an organic level of instinctive behavior that includes amoebas and gorillas evolving to a social level of conscious behavior stresses evolution to meaninglessness. It does not provide for the missing link from instinct to consciousness. That is why I accept esoteric literature proposing evolution to an emotional level from the organic2 level. Joe > woo hoo! 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/
