DMB, Near the beginning ... "It seems to me that Pirsig's position on theism is quite clear and unequivocal. And yet people are shocked and outraged when I defend that position against theistic claims." At the end ... "In short, I think we need a natural, empirically based mysticism because science is inhuman and religion is stupid. It's not the science or religion that bothers me so much as the inhumanity and the stupidity. Given a choice, I want neither. I think that James and Pirsig give us neither."
In the first point I don't think anyone is arguing with you over what Pirsig said. What is suggested is that not everything Pirsig said is 100% literally right and should be defended as such. Gav explicitly admitted he was surprised to find the statements he explicitly disagreed with. On the final point - absolutely - it's not the science and religion we should be railing against but inhuman and stupid extreme application of them. They have no monopoly on inhumanity and stupidity. I've said before I can buy the "thin end of a wedge" pragmatic argument, that allowing benign aspects of science and religion into the discussion is a slippery slope to corrupting our story with their more stupid and inhuman aspects (personally I find it's the science that is supremely stupid and religion inhuman, but no matter). So we understand the arguments and take care with them. What I can't buy is that they - spiritual religion in particular - are taboo as a matter of principle. You can quote me in your essay. No charge :-) Ian On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:34 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Howdy MOQers: > I've started a new thread but it is a response to John's post about the state > of academic philosophy and Gav's post about religion and spirituality. As you > know, I'm in the process of trying to make a case for philosophical mysticism > within the confines of academic philosophy and so those two issues are all of > a piece for me. This is so closely related to what I'm doing at school that > this post practically constitutes a dress rehearsal for this week's homework > assignment. Basically, we're supposed to write a three page explanation of > our thesis. What is your claim and why does it matter? > > Nobody around here will be surprised to learn that my thesis will claim what > Pirsig claims. "Quality is nature", he says, and "there is no spiritual > principle in man that makes knowledge possible. Nature does the whole job." > This "is an atheistic outlook" wherein "no faith is required because there is > no way you can disbelieve that there is such a thing as quality." This sounds > worse than it is, though. This atheistic - even anti-theistic - stance also > forms the basis of a natural mysticism. "Dynamic Quality", or "pure > experience" as James puts it, is the pre-intellectual or pre-conceptual > experience is something every infant knows, it is something which we always > already constantly rely upon in everyday experience AND it the > undifferentiated consciousness of the mystic who's achieved at-one-ment with > the universe. This unitive mystical experience has been known and reported > from all times and places and it is the seed germ of every great religion on > earth. Well, I don't think I'll try to defend that last line, exactly, but > Huxley's notion of a perennial philosophy will definitely get some treatment. > > This is the position I've been defending around here for quite some time. I > don't believe it or defend it just because Pirsig said it, of course. I > defend it because I think it's true. I think it's a good way to have depth > and meaning without losing science or rationality. I think it's a way to > expand and improve science and rationality. That's really Pirsig's aim. He > was to warm and moisten the cold, dry voice of reason without letting the > religionist "sneak his goods in through the back door". > > It seems to me that Pirsig's position on theism is quite clear and > unequivocal. And yet people are shocked and outraged when I defend that > position against theistic claims. I don't just FEEL that I've been unfairly > treated. It's practically a scientific fact! Whenever I make a case that the > MOQ is not compatible with theism a shit storm of abuse immediately ensues > wherein I am a dick, an asshole, a McCarthyite censor and a closed-minded, > knee jerking arrogant monster up on his high horse. And yet I'm only saying > what Pirsig says. That's unfair. He says, "the selling out of intellectual > truth to the social icons of organized religion is seen by the MOQ as an evil > act" and "the MOQ drops spirit and faith, cold". Yet people wonder why anyone > would object when they try to appropriate Pirsig's metaphysical system into > their faith. That's unfair and incorrect. > > > John quoted Jacoby: > "The philosophical self-scrutiny .. may be the weakest because American > philosophy has promoted technical expertise that repels critical thinking ... > its fetish of logic and language has barred all but a few who might rethink > philosophy. Philosophy seems the most routineized of the humanities, the > least accessible to change." > > dmb says: > > The fetish for logic and language that Jacoby is complaining about here > refers to the methods of analytic philosophy and I share his distaste for it. > I also sympathize with his complaints about technical expertise and the > problems with ever narrower specialization. This is part of what I'm working > against and since I'm able to do this within the system, Jacoby's complaints > seem quite well founded and yet they're only true to a certain extent. > Analytic philosophy is still what you have to do at about 80% of the grad > schools and the rest are usually some mix of continental and analytic > philosophies, with a just a few dominated almost entirely by continental > schools. The program where I attend resists analytic philosophy in particular > and specialization in general. The program is interdisciplinary and the > degree will be a Master's of Humanities. It's a school for generalists, not > specialists. Pragmatism is neither analytic nor continental and the one thing > all pragmatisms have in common is that philosophy should make a practical > difference in the real world. They're called meliorists. (meliorism > |ˈmēlēəˌrizəm| noun Philosophy - the belief that the world can be made better > by human effort.) > > > That's the context in which I'll be making a case for Pirsig's natural > mysticism. The program is designed so that you can't get away with taking > classes in a single department. You gotta mix it up. In my case, that meant > taking classes in the religious studies department to supplement the > philosophy of religion course. That meant taking classes that were inherently > interdisciplinary, like the one about Einstein and Picasso. It meant learning > some psychology along with epistemology. And even though there is no end to > the ways one can mix and match, everybody is expected to do some kind of > social critique, shed light on some actual problem. I mean, the this program > in general and pragmatism in particular is not an example of Jacoby's > complaints, they are solutions to the problem he's identified. > > > It doesn't take a subtle eye to detect the tension between science and > religion in our culture. Is there some kind of philosophy that can help to > sort out their opposing claims? You can't stop a suicide bomber with any kind > of empiricism, of course. But the cops and armies that can stop them should > be taking their orders from people who are capable of being persuaded by > reasons and evidence. And if religious differences can be overcome by showing > that they share a common central core, maybe the heat will get turned down > some and fewer people will die. Maybe it'll be easier to view other religions > with tolerance, be easier to see which religious institutions which foster > growth in a healthy way and which ones breed division and hate. And if it can > be shown that this claim about the central core is empirically based maybe > guys like Dawkins will realize that religion isn't always as childish as he > thinks. > > > In short, I think we need a natural, empirically based mysticism because > science is inhuman and religion is stupid. It's not the science or religion > that bothers me so much as the inhumanity and the stupidity. Given a choice, > I want neither. I think that James and Pirsig give us neither. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/ > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
